An interesting point of view, but I think that it would be far more likely that as gaming expands it is going to break down into the same rough market distribution we find in almost every other market I can think of off the top of my head.
You have the elite - cream of the crop - best of the best - In our current generation I suppose Both the PS3 and the Xbox360 are arguing for it (at least in the console world) Yet neither come close to the cost of maintaining a truly cutting edge system.. The PC. High End new PCs will easily dwarf the cost of any console, or even all 3 big players and even include a high def tv to play them on along with several games. It's THAT big of a difference.
Next down we'll find the midrange value, this is generally going to be the price point on the curve where discerning buyers will get the most value for their dollar. (When value matters - this is key) Nintendo Wii is trying to fit in here, I think it's falling short in some ways and succeeding admirably in others. In the Computer market there are PCs built by dell that you can buy for 400 with a monitor, and the fit here too. They're perfectly fine, but don't pretend it's a gaming rig.
At the bottom end we'll find the lower end stuff, PC's that are bought used come here, as do at the moment in the videogame chain the handheld items. This is NOT to say that we can't find great value at these price points. But in general I expect a market to show a 50+% jump each time you go up a step. So 50% of all market users will be on the bottom, 75% in the bottom 2, 82.5% in three, so on, and 50% I pulled out of nowhere, but it gives you an idea of the distribution I'm trying to show.
Example -> Restaurants
Most people dine out. Most people do not dine out at restaurants that normally cost $1000 for a meal. Very few dine out at 100$ a meal. There are more who will dine out at $50,25, all the way down till you hit fast food, and It's no suprise to anyone that McDonalds still has a long line.
Example -> Games
Given that the crowd we are looking at are all gamers. Most gamers do not spend $20,000 on gaming in any given year. Very few spend $10,000 on gaming. Even less as we go down until we hit your lowest end games. I don't think the DS is your fast food, I think it's probably the handheld games in toy isles, possibly the cell phone games.
Now that I've rambled a bit, The real point I'm making is that a lesser price is certainly going to affect sale numbers. Much more telling about value is how far a product will sell beyond it's normal range. This requires defining at what spot in that range a product is. How well the Wii sells to gamers who normally play cell phone games only, or weren't even gamers before, and how well it sells to the person who still buys a 10,000 dollar computer every year are very telling signs of it's value. I think the only semi-accurate graph I could envision to compare sales to value is one where you saw how well a product sold on a graph where the purchases are adjusted by their cost relative to the buyer's income. related graphs would be the buyer's normal expenditures in that area, and comparable products with the same customers.
At the end of all this speculation and number crunching I would argue you could find a "best value". But it would all mean nothing to you if you didn't like the product. That started as my 2 cents and got way out of hand.
)