The point is that raw power doesn't mean shit.
What do you want? A list of examples? Go on Gamefaqs, cross reference titles that are on both PC and N64 or PS1, and you'll quickly see that outside of a few that were originally PC exclusive and ported (when I say a few, I mean you can count them on one hand few), the PC versions are almost always severely gimped. To go a step further, just look at a list of PC games released during the PS1/N64 lifespan, and see how very few do anything close to what was being done on consoles at the time.
These get very slightly better for PS2 era, but not by much. Even then, it's largely because that's when shooters took over everything and video games in general took a massive nosedive.
I never argued horsepower, I argued the quality of games on the respective platforms.
They sold relatively little compared to console games at the time. But as I also said, you have to keep going back to the same tiny pool of examples because they were the exception, not the norm.
You have a few shooters that managed to do 3D and shit. Then you basically have a bunch of point and clicks and cereal box-tier shovelware. Things nearing your high end PC shit were the norm on the contemporary consoles.
In addition, you're not only cherrypicking, but being a cherrypicking graphicswhore. Acting like pure hardware would make your games more fun than many of the most beloved games of all time. But sure, having a couple of noteworthy shooters invalidates all the games the competition was putting out, the likes of Mario 64, Majora's Mask, Conker's Bad Fur Day, Crash Bandicoot, and Spyro the Dragon. Nobody likes those.
You're the one trying to argue about pure hardware, because it's a way to ignore the fact that most of the games you were getting were so far behind that hardware that they might as well have been an entire console generation behind, and even then they were not as well designed as games from the previous generation.
It's actually the opposite. They're largely younger, since PC gaming was absolute shit until last gen, when all games became shit anyway so it became a moot point.
The few older people are largely eastern europeans who didn't get real video games in their backwards shitholes, so they made do with "computer games," and they cling desperately to the few that actually were like real games. But press them and they'll all show nostalgia for their flash-game tier shovelware, which was the bulk of what they got.
I wouldn't play one after, either, since after 2006, not only were PC games shit, but practically all games became shit.
Of course people would eventually begin flocking to the tiny number of games that made their purchases worth it. But we're also talking about the end of the generation, here, and then the new consoles once again outpaced them.
If it's a feature introduced after 2007 I don't use it.