I have nothing but respect to NES, SNES and SEGA Genesis/Mega Drive. What I was trying to point out is that those earlier console types look ridiculously simplistic in comparison with today's computing equipment. Trust me on this one - I've seen their insides. Anyway, as far as you turn away from these resilient "cockroaches" of the console world and look at more advanced models, you'll see a noticeable increase the failure rate statistics. It's just logical: more intricate and complex designs, hundreds of new fragile components and the whole ongoing strive towards their miniaturization will most definitely raise the chances of hardware failure. Besides, it doesn't even matter whether this argument is valid or not: you're simply looking at this from the wrong perspective. Even though it might look like it in my previous post, I do not argue that all consoles are highly unreliable. What I argue is that quality PC components are at very least as much reliable as their console counterparts and, judging from my personal experience, often even more so. PCs, however, have one distinctive characteristic that separates them from consoles. If an element of a console dies, you usually have to replace all of the parts. When something happens to a PC component, all you usually have to do is to replace this particular component without spending hundreds on the replacement of the rest of the system.
It's not really relevant here, but I also want to add that arguing a case against PCs is in many respects similar to arguing a case against democratically run governments. Sure, one can always point out the obvious advantages of an ideal totalitarian utopia (created by SONY(TM)), but many of us still prefer not to have our choices pre-made for us. There's a certain level of freedom and flexibility in PCs I find exhilarating, and I would never consider abandoning that for the predestinately limited world of gaming consoles.