Man, Turbo Grafix was just a terrible system. I had one friend completely in love with Military Commander and I can appreciate that turn based war games were a rarity on consoles. The superiority complex people have about it has always boggled my mind and it's been prevalent since the late 90s.
Why, yes, you COULD spend mega-bucks on two controllers and an imported version of SF2 and have something 80% as good as the $50 version on SNES. No thanks.
Have to agree. My friend gave me his TG16 console and a few games. The games (Bonk's Adventure, Keith Courage, Legendary Axe II) aren't terrible (well... Keith Courage is fairly lame actually) but it's just one big pain-in-the-ass of a console. Needing an adapter just for a second player or a basic A/V connection (well okay, early Genesis needed that too) for unexciting games puts this one on the back burner for me when out shopping.
I could understand the superiority complex though - it's justification for being part of that overlooked minority in that late 80's, early 90's console battle. There was always that one kid with the TG16 who tried to convert his Nintendo or Sega loyal friends by building it up as a high-class gaming machine. Because, otherwise, it was really difficult to talk about games barely anyone else played and rarely cared about.
Again you are correct you'll spend less time on a single title when you have many to choose from. My argument though is that you spend less time because the games aren't all that good. There are very few games on any system that have a ton of replay value, even fewer if you've never played the system before. So yeah you'll spend more time if you have physical games, but only because you have less games to choose from.... you'll still be suffering through a so-so game. 
Everyone should have to suffer through so-so games. That's the way we all grew up playing: $50 on a cartridge with a box sporting big promises the code couldn't live up to. Either you let depression over your wasted allowance cripple you, or you sucked it up and tried your best to make the most out of the underwhelming game.
But nowadays you can just download an entire collection, spend five seconds on a crappy game, laugh mockingly and move on. I'll tell you what though - playing through the bad games is what made the good games so much better. Super Mario Bros. 3, as an example, is still considered a great game. But when it first came out, playing it after spending the long-wait for it to come out with flat-out average NES carts made the game all the more amazing.
I still do that. Milon's Secret Castle. Not a good game, but I spent an evening with it... just because. Then I pop in Mega Man 2. It's like having candy after brussel sprouts. You appreciate it so much more.
BTW: Hopefully you'll realize I'm having fun with this "Point/Counter-Point" discussion on emulation vs. original hardware. I'm doing a self-examination of my MO with regards to retro-gaming. But - full disclosure - in reality, collecting old games is NOT something someone should start spending money simply for the sake of playing an old favorite, especially considering there are easier alternatives (legal and not-so-legal). It's like collecting vinyl records. Don't just do it because some old hipster (like myself) spews some rhetoric over the "superiority" that justifies the hassle as opposed to just hopping on iTunes or Amazon and getting the digital file in seconds. It has to be something you're into doing. Yes, it's fun and rewarding - but only if you're into more than just simply playing the game.
Truthfully, if I played games more these days, I'd be embracing the emulation so much more. But since I spend less time on games, I went with the "only play what I physically have" method. Call it a self-imposed restraint.
Of course, I don't really want everyone fighting for old hardware anyhow. God knows I don't want to end up paying high prices for ridiculously common games because everyone's holding onto their old stuff.