I went down this path a few years ago. You're right, but monitors of size X tend to be much more expensive than TVs of size X. At least they did a few years ago.

Monitors are less expensive at small sizes, I think. But otherwise I would agree.

And at this point, I would be willing to pay slightly more to not pack stuff into the case that I don't want, which may negatively impact the features that I do want.

And if you want a DisplayPort input in lieu of one of the HDMI sockets, that seems to add at least $30 to an otherwise identical monitor, even though DisplayPort is royalty-free. There does seem to be an attempt to segment the market to charge more for displays connected to a computer than for displays connected to a home entertainment appliance.

At larger sizes, I think the assumption is that if you don't have a TV tuner, you're attaching it to a computer, and if you do, you're not. And that breaks down at smaller sizes, where resolution and pixel pitch become an issue for computing, but less so for consoles and DVD players.

I use the tuner, but, on the other hand, some budget TVs don't even have them. But like the other guy said, I haven't seen a lot of great deals on 65" monitors.

For large sizes like that, I think you may be able to get good deals on a sort of larger dumb monitor that is used in airports to display flight information, and to a lesser extent rotating decks of static advertisements. They aren't typically sold direct to consumers. I'm not sure whether their pixel response times are good enough for regular entertainment video streams, though.

I haven't done much digging on this, since 40" is plenty for the longest line-of-sight possible in my house.

Yeah, that sounds pretty not-worth it to me.