Yeah, I'm not denying that, I'm saying that once a console game is capable of delivering 60 FPS, the difference ceases to be that great. In graphical fidelity, the PC will probably always be ahead but the gameplay experience will no longer be as drastically different as it was when consoles were still chugging along at 30 fps because going from 30 to 60 is night and day. In contrast, the PS5 is supposed to be able to deliver 4k at 120Hz with HDMI 2.1. At 120 fps, the PC would have basically no advantage in smoothness and responsiveness (above 60, diminishing returns do start to kick in and anything above 120 and you won't really notice the difference) so the main advantage would be visual fidelity. The gap will be smaller in this sense, even in the case of games where the PC version does take full advantage of the PC (again, looking at you, Bethesda or From Software for not doing that).
Of course most console games won't run at 120 FPS. But for the vast majority of people, new PC games don't, either, and games either don't take full advantage of the PC's power or if they do, you need a nuclear-powered quantum computer that can feel the Force to run them at their best. See Cyberpunk: you can, theoretically, run it at 4K on Ultra but then a 3090 will average around 35-40 fps. Then again, maybe in a few years PC hardware will be capable of, I don't know, time travel or something so that a €1500 PC will actually know in advance what you want to do in a game. And then consoles will look very silly with their traditional concept of the flow of time.
.