Its nonsense to say that the ps3 is a small jump from the ps2. The games released may be a ‘small jump’ but the technology in the ps3 is a massive leap from the ps2. You couldn’t get a gaming computer like the ps3, unless you were willing to spend a lot more than the price of a ps3.
also, on top of that, it seems computers need impossibly more computing power to run console games, than console games need to, to run them smoothly. Maybe i’m just wrong about that.
A PS3 does nothing but play games though. Whereas an equivalent PC will do a lot more.
This is entirely down to markets, and the fact that PCs are required to do things other than just play games. When you’re designing a game to adapt to 10,000 different possible hardware configurations, it is a lot harder than designing a game where the hardware configuration is ubiquitous.
An “equivalent” PC? By what standard? Surely you can’t mean price. A PC with the capacity to run a game like GTA IV at 30 frames per second is going to run you a hell of a lot more scratch than a PS3 will. Hell, high-end gaming laptops, the sort that will run the biggest games without a hitch like the PS3 or 360 do, can approach $6,000. And not to belabor the point, but there are graphics cards out there that by themselves can cost as much as a PS3. Again, your use of the term equivalent is confusing.
Not to mention, PS3 plays Blu-rays, a pretty big deal if you’ve got a HDTV, especially since stand-alone Blu-ray players cost as much or more than a PS3.
Bottom line, for me anyway, is that the PS3 is a high-end gaming PC, with a Blu-ray player to boot, for roughly 1/4 (if not 1/16) the price of what I’d expect to pay for its “equivalent.”