Consoles themselves may not die out in the near future, but a number of start-ups are making the bet that the future will be less about the branded platform experience (Sony versus Microsoft) and more about the service. Think of it as choosing between an HBO or Showtime of games that you'll access through a generic console-like box that could be manufactured by Nintendo--or Samsung.

That's not to say this is going to happen now, but it will likely happen at some point.

The comments railing against St. John's argument read almost like a generational attack against the very notion that consoles might not exist in their current form in the future. It's what we know (and love) and therefore it can't possibly change. It's like the heartbreak over Sega and its Dreamcast all over again.

But look at the popularity of Webkinz and Club Penguin, Gaia Online and Habbo Hotel, Nexon's free-to-play library and Three Ring's Puzzle Pirates: kids are growing up playing on PCs. It's anecdotal, but I've heard from several gaming execs (particularly in the mobile space) that kids don't have a screen preference. They're so accustomed to mobile phones, laptops, PCs, handhelds and consoles that the platforms are virtually indistinguishable to them. The content is obviously different, but they're just as likely to play an N-Gage game as they are the Wii.

Hell, even Microsoft is adopting "games as a service." Instead of launching new hardware to appeal to a broader demographic, the company is simply relaunching Xbox 360 via a software update.

Consoles will probably live on for another generation or two (or three). But that doesn't mean the basic "PC is the future console" is implausible. The real reason St. John's presentation should be so polarizing is because the future he describes benefits his business--he's betting on it.