So let me see if I have this straight. Despite the fact the PS3 has already lost Sony as much money as they made during the PS2's entire lifetime. Despite the fact the company is struggling and just had to cut 16000 jobs your proposals are to:
Raise the production cost of the machine. Take a further... well hard to say with all the stuff you bundled in. Probably what? An extra $130 loss per console sold. Thirdly stop production on one of the remaining profitable products.
What is wrong with you?
Firstly those actions still wouldn't be enough to put it ahead of the wii. The wii is simply popular at the moment, even assuming the PS3 did overtake it in sales Nintendo could easily afford to drop the price $100. Hell Nintendo are so profitable that if they really decided to give up profitability for market share they could reduce the wii to $150 and bundle a game or two, the loss per console would probably still be less than what you propose for the PS3.
However even assuming all those actions somehow did manage to make the PS3 first in the console sales, what would be the point when sony had suffered billions of dollars of debt. Money that in the PS3's lifecycle they would never ever get back. Even if the PS3 performed as well as the PS2 did it would still struggle to recoup the losses, let alone massive further losses.
I mean your strategy basically comes down to bigger losses and removing profitable products from market. I mean hell with an extra $130 loss per system think how many games they would have to sell to recoup that! If it's a third party game then what an extra 13 games?