Believe it or not, jvd, there's a science and a psychology to picking brand names.
And "PlayStation" is certainly one of the best this industry has ever seen. It's not only simple, but descriptive, and that's the catch. The meaning is immediate; it sounds like a game machine.
Compare this to Atari VCS, Atari 2600, Atari 5200 or 7800 - none of those alpha or numerical suffixes mean a thing. (Well, "VCS" did - but come on, how clunky can you get?)
"Intellivision" wasn't bad. "Vectrex" was too ambiguous for the average consumer, who wouldn't know a vector from a raster if it came up and bit them on the behind. "Nintendo" did a good job of making its name synonymous with video games, which is why it could get away with "Nintendo 64."
Too bad "Nintendo" these days equates to "kids' games" in a lot of people's minds.
"Saturn" was pretty unoriginal - even a car company was using it - and it didn't mean much without the Sega name in front of it.
"Dreamcast" may be one of the worst names in console history. Talk about fruity! But the real reason it wasn't good is because it's hardly descriptive at all. What the hell is a dreamcast?
I think Nintendo took a cue from Sony when it named Gamecube. Now there's a nice, descriptive name that describes the product nuts-on.
I'm less enamored with Xbox. It's kind of bland if you think about it. OK, OK, I get the whole "DirectX" connection, but who else but a geek would?
Nope, "PlayStation" is undoubtedly the smartest console name ever, in my opinion. Granted, it's not realistic to expect that EVERYONE will like the name, but given Sony's success with the brand, I think it's clear that the name is far more of an advantage than a detriment.