No, it's not that I want DSLR features particularly. Its that the use cases in which spending $25,000 or more for a digital back makes sense are quite small, as I said.
Not non-existent, but quite small.
Being able to use it with wiggles is certainly nice, but that doesn't exactly explain Hasselblad. The argument appears to be that, for the low low price of about $30,000 I can avoid the trouble of stitching together pictures from my D3200, AND I get slightly better color fidelity?
I'm pretty sure that if I stick a 200mm lens on the D3200, and stitch myself up a 200 megapixel picture that contains, say, a roughly standard-lens field of view, and the downsample that to 50 megapixels, you're going to have an extremely hard time showing any measurable or perceptible differences in image quality, or image characteristics, in any particular dimension.
The cost for this setup is about $27,000 less, and I have to spend a few minutes in photoshop for each picture.
There are certainly cases where saving a few minutes per picture is, eventually, worth $27,000, especially when you add to that things like robustness of gear, compatibility with legacy equipment, and so on. I get that.
All I'm saying is that the use cases where it makes sense are extremely slim.