Lets put things this way. I spent $1400 on a PC about 10 months ago. I posted my specs in a computer thread somewhere else, and am too lazy to post em again. I bought GTA4 when it came out for PC. You'd think with a 1400 self made (no HP/Aliencrap markup) I'd be able to run anyway game on the market at max FPS (60 due to my monitor). Not true. GTA 4 runs at around 30 FPS at a resolution comparable to the 720p it runs at on the 360.
Given this is the only game I have that doesn't run on max settings (I now have a monitor that supports 1920x1200 resolution too), the difference between console and PC is clear.
You can buy two PCs for the price of a PS3? Sure, if by PC you mean a toaster with a Pentium III glued to the side of it. The PS3 is only 400 bucks right now. You can buy a cheapo tower with onboard graphics and an outdated processor for that much. Keep in mind, the PS3 supports 1080p (1920x1080) which is much higher than any midgrade computer can run a game at right now on the market.
Does my computer run into a lot of problems? Very rarely anything I have to put a whole lot of money into. But as I said before, the only console I've owned thats ever gone bad was a PS2, and I bought that one used and modded it. Statistically speaking, consoles are much more reliable than PCs, and this boils down to the fact that consoles are simpler. PCs have to deal with windows, security patches, ports and portforwarding, antiviruses, software and driver updates, user configuration, input devices, different kinds of memories, customized expandability, and are altogether designed to run millions of different programs. Consoles only run games, and only work with devices which are cleared by the one company who designed the console's format.
Rule of thumb: Simple Design=Less that goes wrong.
