Two generations, so the 360, Wii, and PS3 are currently the cutting edge of retro.
I am reminded of the huge arguments on RGVC on Usenet when people started discussing NES games in the mid-90s. Since they were two generations old at that point (PS1 and Saturn having just launched), they were grudgingly allowed. I think that remains a good barometer.
A lot of systems have gone from "nobody wants this" to "precious treasure" in the last decade.
That said, if you want a reasonably-priced Saturn, I recommend looking at Yahoo Japn Auctions. Japanese Saturns are still extremely common so if you put together a large YAJ order using a proxy service like Zenmarket or Dejapan, you can still get one (and an assortment of games and accessories) for a good price.
One of the major problems is that the disc drives have been failing. If you want to go the ODE route (Fenrir/MODE/etc), it's pretty easy to get your hands on a Saturn (from any region) that can't read discs but otherwise powers on and lets you access the internal menu system.
I don't think a merger of this scale should occur. It reduces competition in the marketplace and is unlikely to provide any benefits to consumers.
However, that said, I'm not sure blocking a merger like this makes sense in a world where Disney was allowed to acquire a significant percentage of pop culture, or Warner Bros. Discovery can own DC Comics, CNN, HBO, and of course the titular movie studio and television networks. The mega-merger barn door isn't just open, it got ripped off of its hinges.
I find it absolutely ridiculous that the availability of fucking Call of Duty, specifically, has been the subject of top level scrutiny by regulators in multiple nations when there was nary a peep when Disney acquired Lucasfilm.
Wish I could upvote this more than once. This is very trenchant insight. I wonder if future corporate mergers will be timed with appropriate presidential administrations and their appointees.
My argument for this merger going forward is primarily one of precedence. I strongly believe that most legal questions should be already settled - one should be able to look at established precedence to identify the most likely result, and if precedence is upended, then it needs to thoroughly establish a new legal paradigm that allows prediction of most future cases. Given the recent history of mega-mergers, it should be safe for executives to assume that similar mergers would be approved.
If the most relevant criteria for whether the FTC permits a merger is "the ideology of whoever is in charge" then we have major problems. (And yes, I know this can and does apply to the US Supreme Court...)