I would agree that $10 is probably worth the extra graphics. My problem is that I'm not willing to pay the $350 extra up front to get to that $10 per game game level. I'm actually surprised that your reason for not liking the wii is bc you have to stand up. I've seen people play every game on Wii sports sitting down very effectively. In addition, that's one of the things I like about the wii is that I can turn it on from my couch and I only have to get up to change discs. Not withstanding, most games use very little in the way of arm movements (same amount of effort as a button push).
On paper, yes the PS3 is 10x as powerful as the wii. However, there are several diminishing returns. I've yet to see a game that truly optimizes multiple core processors. In addition, how much more power does the wii need? It's only an SD console. It's never going to output 1080p, as such I don't know what it would do with the power if it was close to a PS3. So my question is what would be the optimal console power for an SD console? Should the wii be twice as powerful? Is it powerful enough? Do you truly need a PS3 to optimize SD?
The second thing is do people really expect future generations of consoles to look better than the PS3 in 1080p? Let's say their is an infinite amount of power available. You say that you need 20x a PS3 to optimize 1080p graphics, then you can have it. The big bugdet games for PS3 are rumored to have up to $500 M budgets. It's my argument that we are not going to see much better graphics. I think that you could eventually make a game with "shrek" type graphics. But you'll never see it because it would take too many resources and be unfeasible from a business prospective. Which is why the PS3 will never be tapped out in terms on it's ability. Theoretically the PS3 has more power but I doubt we'll see much of it used.
