That case looks more like it was an attempt to build a computer that emphasized vanity over utility while managing to have neither characteristic. Some major problems:
1. It requires manufacturers tailor their equipment directly to Razer. If I wanted to be shafted and forced to buy proprietary gadgets from one company, I'd buy a Mac. At least Apple can make the process of bending you over and fucking you a cultural phenomenon.
2. The Razer CEO claims that this will reduce wastage by allowing the easy trading of old hardware to lower end consumers. I don't think he has ever been to E-bay before, someone should probably tell him about that.
3. Computer parts are already easily interchangeable and standardized enough to allow various manufacturers and consumers to choose their flavor. No one that builds their computer for gaming would also be willing to buy a Razer Walled-Garden Brand computer.
4. "Christine's a bit different because if we went out and built our own modules and platform, we would literally be creating a walled garden, which is something that we don't want to do," he said. "We want to be able to go out there with a couple of big OEMs and be able to say, look, maybe Razer does all the super high-end stuff. You guys can do all the mass-market stuff and stuff like that. --- Uhh, this is exactly what Apple does, and we call it a walled garden because that is exactly what it is.
Basically Razer wants to corner the gaming market, but forgets PC gamers aren't lemmings. While I do own some Razer products (and they are fairly good at what they do), I would never pay a premium to have this new gaming PC that only Steve Jobs would approve of.