I can't help but take from the article that there is somehow a bitterness toward the success of the Wii on the part of the authors. It seems as if they are equating the success of the console to the ignorance of the buyer. They suggest that we really need to question if the gameplay, and presentation of games on the Wii is important enough to supersede the graphical prowess of the other systems. Do we? I though that playing a game, and enjoying it, was enough to determine its value. I didn't know that we had to have esoteric discussions on the theoretical implications of graphics versus mechanics and style. Sure, graphics are something to be considered, but at the end of the day, you will enjoy what you want, and don't need to beat yourself up that you aren't using the most cutting-edge hardware available.
Another thing is that they play out all of these "what if?" scenarios, and assume the worst case for Nintendo. What if Sony and Microsoft release similar controllers? What if they drop their prices? Won't this make the Wii insignificant? Well, it could, but again, that assumes the worst from Nintendo's strategists, and the best from Sony and Microsoft's developers.
PS3 already has a motion-sensitive controller, which has proven to be a mere afterthought. It isn't too much to assume that the same could happen even with slightly more functionality, and a new form-factor. One could extend this to the 360. These machines have been catering to a different type of player. Sure, there is some overlap, but at this point in the game, it seems plausible that new peripherals could very well be completely insignificant, much like the many failed peripherals Nintendo has released, themselves.
As for the price drop: what is to say that, given a significant push from the competition, Nintendo wouldn't match the drop? They are already profiting from the system, and the production costs are surely dropping, as we speak, so why assume that they would sit by and watch the others come down to more attractive price-points?
And, of course, as many often state, with the under-utilization of the GameCube, it is hard to say how far developers could take standard-definition graphics on the Wii. We may be able to give numbers on polygon-counts, et al, but those numbers don't necessarily translate into how a game will actually look.
Now, if they want to argue that, perhaps, we are overpaying for what we have gotten with the Wii, they might be able to make a better argument. But, again, value isn't so cut-and-dry.
Again, all of this speculation on their behalf seems defensive. I realize that they are "tech" guys, so they want to see cutting edge, and perhaps it irks them that the brainwashed masses are falling for the marketing (to paraphrase what they state). None the less, their speculations seem vapid, and ill-conceived. I realize that I, in the course of this post, made speculations, too; but they were merely as counterpoint to theirs, in attempt to show that the discussions they are suggesting aren't really constructive. The points they suggest are moot.