One thing I don't get about Sony

Sony is getting a lot of flack over the PS3. Some of it is deserved - it took a long time to release, it was un-godly expensive when it was first released, it lacks great exclusive content (there is speculation that this is because it is very hard to develop for), and many disagree about the need for blu-ray format games. I like Sony. I like Playstation - I don't own a PS3, but with a $350.00 model available and great upcoming content, I'm now in the market for one.

With that said, I do have a serious question for Sony that makes me shake my head at times. You make high end gaming equipment, and you make the HD TV's that display the games... I see a massive opportunity for synergy here. Why create a high end LCD/Plasma with a PS3 integrated into the TV? To me that would make an expensive gaming "toy" into a an attractive value proposition for someone making an "investment" in an HD television.

Bundling the technologies in this fashion completely changes the dynamics of the purchase in the consumer's mind.

Status Quo:

1. I have a TV which may or may not be HD.
2. I see and want the PS3
3. I make a decision as to whether I want to spend $700 on a toy...hmm I think I'll pass and pick up the 360.

Integration:

1. I'm in the market for a new HD TV (which most people either are or will be in the near future)
2. I go into a big box store and look around - there are a lot of options and I'm probably going to do research online or ask a sales rep. Both are probably going to tell me that if I'm getting an HD TV, I'll probably want (and in the future will need) a blue-ray DVD player. The Sony TV actually has one built right in for a fraction of the cost of a stand-alone blue ray player. Great VALUE.
3. Many people (especially younger people with little money) are going to finance that new HD TV - because a TV is easier to rationalize as an investment, not a toy. Adding even $700 to the price tag a of a big ticket item like a TV makes only a $20-$30 per month difference in the purchaser's monthly payment. Seems like a small price to pay for a blu-ray player (which you'll need some day) and a PS3, (which the kids/I would like).
4. I go with the Sony that has the PS3 add-on because it provides me with the most value for my money - this could even swing me away from buying a competing HD TV.
   
5. I'm not making my decision based on the PS3 vs. other game consoles - I'm making it based on the super TV vs other TV's. Therefore I'm not as worried that the 360 has a much better selection of games, has better online gaming and is cheaper - because I'm not directly comparing the two any more.
   

The clear difference between the two scenarios is that in the first one, you're asking a consumer to make a splurge purchase on an expensive toy. Not only that, you're asking them to spend a ton on the hardware, let alone the fact that they have to drop more cash on the games, an extra controller, etc. Even if you tell them that you get a wireless media center and blu-ray player on the cheap, in the end it's still a toy. In scenario two, you've got a customer that's already expecting to spend a lot of money. These people do research and ask store employees to find out which purchase offers them the most value. Instead of buying a TV, then having to drop cash on a PS3, you're getting the TV that does it all at a much lower price than buying a TV and a blu-ray player alone. People love getting a deal, and at any cost higher than it's competitors, especially the launch price of $700 the PS3 is far from breaking down the mental purchasing barrier. I'm not saying that Sony should stop making stand-alone PS3's, or that an integrated system would magically change their fortunes, but if they did create an integrated solution it would certainly help to drive adoption of the PS3, the blu-ray format and their TV's.