Too bad that unlike most technology, full-frame sensors are more or less a fixed-price technology. The resolution will go WAY up, but the raw cost of the sensor stays the same, until much slower evolutions in silicon process technology happen.
You see, a full-frame sensor has a specific size (35x24mm), which means your silicon substrate (also of a specific size, typically 12cm or 30cm - in the 30-odd years of IC manufacturing technology, the biggest move was to 30cm wafers, and that was in the 90s) can only make a certain number of them. So the gross yield is always the same. Unlike say, a modern digital IC, where every 18 months, we progress to a new technology level (130nm, 95nm, 65nm...) thus increasing gross yields, and thus, net yields, making each chip cheaper to make.
Analog technology doesn't move that fast, and full-frame sensors take up so much silicon area that they're just plain expensive in the first place. Especially if you don't want dead pixels (there are around maybe 10-12 on the average APS-sized sensor - which, BTW, Nikon uses (always a strict 1.5x crop, none of this 1.4, 1.3, 1.6 crap Canon pulls - WTF? Pick a sensor size and stick with it!)), so they'll always be expensive.
But for cameras, it's not resolution, but pixel size. An SLR can take better photos much easier than a point and shoot merely because the cells are bigger and thus, less noisy. (One of the reasons why point and shoots have such noticable photo patterns is because of the extreme denoising the 5+MP ones must do with their 1/2" or smaller sensors, nevermind how to get glass that good for a sensor that small).