Old consoles usually end up being dirt cheap along with their games though, so it's not like there aren't alternatives.
The same can be said of PCs?
There IS still bullshit with having to buy a new PC for the latest game
Only if you have to have all the latest shiny features. Otherwise, PC hardware has only slightly less lifespan than a console generation. Plus, this is another way PC has more options. It is advancing constantly, rather than in several year increments, and you have the option of keeping up with that advancement... and if you don't it's generally not a big deal. The vast majority of PC games aren't like Crysis.
It's not nearly as expensive as it's made out to be either. My General Rule: Video card upgrade every two years. CPU/Ram/Motherboard upgrade every 4 years. Other stuff as necessary, which is very rarely. Generally, no single component should cost more than $200 for something that may not be cutting edge, but is just a couple small notches beneath that. It's no more expensive than keeping up with two separate lines of very expensive consoles (most people seem to have Wii + PS3 or XBox) plus their games, which are generally much more expensive than PC with much less replay value.
You're also still fully affected by exclusive titles
Depends on how you look at it. If you're looking at PC as one of four major gaming platforms, then sure... this is kind of true. You can't play games that are exclusive to a console, at least not until it gets ported to an emulator.
However, I was looking at this as PC vs console. There is a legitimate divide there, considering there are certain common features that define something as a console system, and there are three major examples of them that are completely separate and incompatible with each other. Then there is PC, which covers a huge range of devices... but they're all PC. The example I noted regarding FF7... that kind of thing does not happen on PC. The closest problem we have is shitty console ports.