Much as I contend the prequels did well financially because they were technically Star Wars, I don't think many people will want to experience all 6 as a saga, to be watched back-to-back over a week or a marathon weekend. There's only a niche audience for the 'Skywalker Father and Son' saga, and a much bigger Star Wars audience who wouldn't want to waste over 6 hours of poor entertainment to lead them into the 6 hours of glorious fun and adventure.
Further, I don't think anyone who was born before 1999 would, if they were to watch all six films, want to experience the story in its chronological order of fictional events; most will rightly want to watch them in the chronological order of creation, which presents the story to its greatest effect.
Not that there's zero effect from watching it 1 to 6, but the better story effect lies in watching the main story, then the back story.
People are perfectly free to read The Silmarillion before they tackle Lord of the Rings, but they are missing the greater emotional effect of reading the stories in the order they were published.
Lord of the Rings itself provides an even greater example. In Tolkien's novel, events are not told in strict chronology. After the point where the characters split up to pursue separate adventures, the separate threads of the tale leapfrog each other in time. There's a lot of suspense in this design - specifically in having many of the characters - and a good many readers - believing that Frodo is dead. Peter Jackson ditched this well-planned scheme, and laid out his movies in strict chronology. It was a drastic mistake.
A story is not simply the sum of its parts. It's all in how the tale is told. Sometimes messing with the chronology is absolutely vital. Heheh, put the events in Memento in chron order, and you've turned a great movie into a pointless one.
It's arguable whether the reverse chronology is as vital to Star Wars.
I'm arguing it is.
.