You guessed right aaronkupen
Anyhow, here's my take on the PS3, and this is standard economics and some advanced tech. Anyhow, whenever a new console is made, especially one with radical new architecture, it takes the community of programmers at least a year, maybe two since the architecture is so radically different to fully optimize its hardware and special instruction sets. New ways of compiling code, easier workarounds to eke out performance boosts, thus shortening code, it takes a long time. As aaron stated, you haven't seen the full potential of the new consoles. PS3 will begin to look better, as will the 360 as coders developement tools become more robust. The best comparison I can think of is on the old NES. How the games were a normal affair as far as graphics, then one day Donkey Kong Country came out setting a new graphical standard. How did they suddenly get such better graphics? New developement tools and vast experience, that's how. Now, as far as the SPE's, they are not exactly as they seem. Yes, when it comes to working out physics engines, AI, etc they will be monsters. However, in the long run they are not ideal for game creation. The main reason for this is due to lack of branch prediction. The cell is not like a normal processor, it is not multipurpose. The PS3 has only ONE multipurpose processor to the 360's three multipurpose processors. The SPE's are built, essentialy to run certain types of code at very high speeds. Thats where the FP calculations come in, good in some cases, not so good in others. I have also learned the the PPE has a lower IPC (instructions per cycle) then a standard desktop, however it has a higher clock speed. How this will effect the final outcome is anyones guess. Here is some info on the Cell and 360 for comparison. It is lengthy reading, so hope you have some time:
Xbox360:
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/xbox360-1.ars
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/xbox360-2.ars
PS3/actually just cell info so not all info is exact because the PS3 is a little bit different
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/cell-1.ars
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/cell-2.ars
hands on article on the PS3
http://games.kikizo.com/news/200602/065_p1.asp
Now, as far as the bluray, don't bet on it making things better. It costs money to write games. Developer time, printing, deadlines (you have to get these games shipped fast, otherwise you will release a game whose game engine is now out dated). So, time constraints and economics come into play when it comes to all that extra space on these disks. Only thing that would be feasible (FOR NOW) would be to use the extra room for extra content, movies, whatever. Game enhancements though? Don't bet on it. Cost way to much and would take far to much time to do it, and like I said. They have time restraints to worry about, and the cost of production would be sky high. Think $60 to $70 is to much for a game? The price would be much more. Now, one way they could use it is to speed things up by keeping files uncompressed, but again you are not looking at gameplay and graphics updates. So, nope. Thats why I think they should of ditched bluray and gone with a cheaper alternative that still afforded more space, and brought the price of the PS3 down, however sony has their new format baby that they want to take over our living rooms and they'll go through any means they can to achieve this, even if it means paying more for a game console.