While mostly true, dev's seem to rush games with little testing done in house, well not as much as compared to once upon a time. Logistics suggests more testing seems to be done after release utilising the public instead of hiring a work force.
Pc hardware/software combinations is vast and continuously changing so i could see the reason for doing it that way. Despite bugs, which you can kind of usually help avoid the bulk of, especially on release, if wait a couple of weeks. They usually get fixed pretty quickly if game breaking.
Despite bugs, which consoles too can have it's own share, gaming on PC is often superior achieving higher quality textures and frame rates. Ok, so dev's generally concentrate on consoles more, not because of content control, but more to do with optimising, running a game the best possible on limited hardware. Hardware that is confined and power constrained.
Consoles have it's place, it just depends on you what you feel like playing. When it comes to fps games, id much prefer a m&k. M&k isn't the only reason for spending a premium, if invested right, can have a PC that'll last several years with perhaps an gpu upgrade that'll keep running rings around the current, next and beyond gen consoles.
Regarding monitor, i have a 1440p 27" screen and love it, makes sense for the size. Gpu demand isn't that great coming from 1080p so any modern mid tier gpu is going to perform reasonably well depending on other ingame graphics settings. Of course, if want a targeted frame rate, some research to determine which is best for you will help make the right choice.