Also, it is worth noting that nVidia (and ATI, to a much lesser extent) are trying to (and succeeding at) getting into the scientific computing market. Could easily make up lost sales with universities and research labs,
Plus, there will always be casual games and really bad ports.
Nah, companies like Ubi are what are keeping PC gaming, as WE know it, alive. I am not saying we should all change our minds and stop boycotting ubi-drm immediately. But at the same time, I would suggest not wishing upon a star for them to burst into flames.

Oh noes! They are making console games. They can never make anything for me.
Look at games like Silent Hunters 4 and the newest Settlers game. Them still be PC games. Yeah, AC2 and SC:Conviction are ports (well done ports, from what I have heard), but so what?
And if PC was "the last on their mind", why would they have bothered with Ubi-DRM in the first place?
Nah, Ubi wants to make PC games. They just might not be doing it the way that a lot of us would prefer.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Just wish their DRM bursts into flames.

Indeeed lets look at them. Only online. Look at Ubi's forums and see if they sold well.

If you're just doing email, word processing, web browsing and playing the odd video, why do you need anything more than an Atom (or ARM) running Linux with a low-end graphics chip?
Games are the only thing the average PC user does which need a fast CPU or a fast 3D chip... and one of the few things that needs Windows. Kill PC gaming and you kill the entire traditional PC industry.

You'll understand if I ignore your other post. I just don't feel that I would be able to counter your irreproachable logic.
As for this: Do you have the sales figures?
As for the "only online" thing: That is a matter of the DRM. We aren't discussing that right now (hard to get around, having a conversation about Ubi's games where we discuss the games. But give it a shot :p).
As for if they sold well: I don't know. Do you have sales figures?
And if you are referring to the problems with ubi-drm on the forums (oh, sneaky sneaky!), then those actually argue that it sold somewhat well. Hard to have trouble with a DRM model for a game you don't own :p
Either way though, I am not here to discuss DRM. I am here to just say that Ubi is still making PC games. Hell, they are still making games that can ONLY be done on the PC. They might not be doing it the way you like, but they are.
As such, we should really hope they don't go belly-up.
But nah, let's put this in a light that lets people pretend they are superior to everyone else:
Let's say you are a relatively small publisher/developer. We'll go with CD Projekt (who are actually pretty big, but they come across as small for everyone not in Eastern Europe :p). You are making a really cool game (let's say, The Witcher). Now, you aren't an idiot. You know that not everyone will like this game. Let's say your magic research has said that 1 in every 10 people will buy the game. But fortunately, companies like Ubi, EA, and Activision have kept the PC gaming market alive. Because of the couple million who bought computers to run Modern Warfare 2 (yay, time machine!), you will still get a couple hundred thousand sales. Not too shabby.
So all those "idiots" who buy the games you don't like, all those "idiots" who buy the games with the DRM-models you don't approve of, they are increasing the pool. They are increasing the likelihood of someone having a system capable of running something pretty (or something with enough processing power to do a crapton of physics calculations).

With Steam getting into Mac territory, serious computer gaming will never die.

Absolutely, 100% agree with this. Developers need to stop spending like every game they develop is a AAA platinum seller, and have their budgets for development and marketing correspond to realistic expectations for sales.
And we as gamers have to put our money where our mouths are, stop being absolute graphics whores who bitch and complain if every single game hasn't had millions spent on needlessly complex engines and actually back up our all too often specious claims that all we care about is the gameplay.

All this is why I buy good independent and/or small budget games as often as possible. :)
I like that some publishers like Capcom, Sega and LucasArts are investing in them. I think the success of platforms like GOG, Steam, Xbox LIVE Arcade, etc. does say a significant amount of people value gameplay over graphics and are happy to pay for it.

Umm, what? That's amusingly extreme. If Ubisoft and EA jumped ship, there would still be major publishers/developers to fill the void. Not to mention the start up, or 'unknown' developers who make games far beyond popcap quality.
Games like The Void, the Penumbra series, Torchlight, The Witcher, STALKER - these games are a fine example of PC gaming. They came out of the woodwork, and most of us who live abroad had no idea who the hell the developers were. And what do you know? They achieved success. If not in sales to the point that they're burning money to free up space, but critical acclaim and gamers who wanted more. Then you still have other publishers and/or developers like Valve, Sierra (do they even develop games anymore, or are they solely publishers now?), Bethesda, Codemasters and so on.
The big three you just mentioned have grown to such preportions due to buying out smaller companies. At ONE stage, these guys were innovators, but for a long time they've operated on a pure business model. Acquire, make profit, disband what isn't making enough profit, rinse and repeat.
Yes, fine. Games ARE a business, but what's to be thankful about? The threats that they'll jump ship? If we, PC and console gamers, are supposed to be thankful for their products, then let them be thankful for our money and show a little bit of respect towards the consumer.

The experience?? I hope you're being sarcastic. The experience sucks when the game sucks and the locations are boring.

I didn't mean to knock those games. As I said above, I have issues with the mega-publishers and how they are doing things, and I think Torchlight and STALKER are a good example of catering to your actual audience and planning your budgets accordingly so you make a nice profit.
My point was more symbolism... Ubisoft and EA leaving the PC behind would send a shockwave that would be hard for the PC to overcome, and developers behind games like STALKER and Torchlight would be even more inclined to look to consoles and their new low-budget distribution avenues.
Like how Warner Bros. leaving HD-DVD killed that platform, even though other major studios and minor studios were still in the HD-DVD camp. HD-DVD could not survive that kind of public dismissal.

Ah, I took you far too literally.
I agree completely with the symbolism, which at least is why I find particular delight in Ubi's lower profit. It would be a great shame if they set such an example.

It's not for you. Relax. :P

Why would it send shockwaves through PC market? So they stop making games for the PC market, it would not fold as a result, it will fold when people stop buying the hardware. Most of the games Ubisoft release on PC are console ports, with a couple that are made for the PC that are not enough to keep PC gaming by itself. People who are into PC gaming do not do so for ability to play console ports and a couple of games a year, they do it for various reasons including the PC specific games that are released primarily by companies like Valve and Bioware (which has been bought up by EA, which I will be dealing with next).
The loss of the big three could be a good thing, as it would let the other companies to expand and grow, instead of being bought up and disbanded the moment they make anything that could remotely threaten the big three. Bioware was doing fine, yet it still got bought up by EA (via a partnered company, not through Bioware agreeing to the takeover). I don't feel that is a good thing, as it reduces competition. PC gaming is perfect for smaller companies, as it already has low-budget distribution channels that are cheaper and better than those for the consoles, which are not as great as they make out.
Warner Bros did not kill HD-DVD, Warner Bros left because they realised that HD-DVD was a dead duck. 'Public dismissal' by Warner Bros had nothing to do with it, thats like saying the spots on a person killed them instead of the disease, symptom not a cause.