PC people cheap? Seems to me it's the opposit- I help run a game swap site, and the PC gamers all tend to be the people with cash- they have to be to afford a rig that can, say, play F.E.A.R at 1600x1200 with 4X AA and anisotropic filtering on a 20.1" LCD. Of course, people willing to wait 6-18 months can play older titles or upgrade with last year's tech for pennies on the dollar, but that's still usually a bigger cash outlay than $200 for a console that will run games for 3-5 years or longer.
Of course, with consloes getitng pricier (the 360 is really stupidly overpriced on release IMHO) and PC power coming down at nearly the same rate, the line's blurring, but then again, so is the difference between consoles and PCs- the 360 is really just a simplified, standardized set-top PC after all.
Console strength = Installed user base of millions on a standardized platform, which SHOULD lead to reduced proiduction costs, as one game only has to work on one set of systems specs. This assumed benefit is trumped, however, by:
Console drawbacks = Developers have to pay HUGE premiums to the console manufacturers for SDKs and the rights to develop for that platform.
PC strengh = No royalties for development. Anyone can build or license a graphics engine and SDK, and then just publish. Takes advantage of bleeding-edge technology and is often times ENCOURAGED or even monetarily supported by hardware makers- Doom III for example, was really more of a tech demo showing what was possible on high-end video cards than anything else (God knows it wasn't a great GAME).
PC Drawbacks = Diverse user base- PC users play on everything from 486's to the latest P4 and AMD chipsets. Advances like WinXP and DirectX have smoothed the way, but development and expecially SUPPPORT costs for PC games are astronomically higher due to non-standaridization.
Both suffer from retail issues- expensive shelf space, massive advertising and PR costs, etc. Both PC and some consoles promise on-line delivery (ex: Steam for PC and some fledgling game delivery channels for consoles that leverage their broadband connectivity) that might one day help mitigate cost, however if history and an analysis of the music industry and things like iTunes are any indication, all publishers will do is pocket the money they see from the cost savings they get from not having to burn CDs and buy retail shelf space, and we lowly users will simply pay the same we always have for new titles. Both also suffer from "Hollywood-itis", where budgets get larger and larger to meet the ever-growing expectations of the audience. Players always want more... More FX, more realistic physics, more levels, more, better-looking graphics, more lifelike AI, more music tracks form actual famous recording artists, more, more, more...
As budgets break MILLIONS of dollars, venture capitailst-types that put up the enormous sums of cash won't risk their investlement on new game types or innovation- everything becomes "Quake XXIII" or "Mario 2010"- names that are guarandeed to sell X-number of units with a predictable return on investment rather than games that might do something different and be wildly innovative and fun, but which "only" will sell a few thousand copies.