That would require logic, buying a new console at $350+ in a years time to play a backlog of games you could play, right now, on a console for < $100, would obviously be too simple a solution that doesn't support his negativity towards the PS4.

It would a nice feature, but for me it's not important.

"Oh fuck yeah, I got a brand new console, now let's play some really old games with that sucker!"

Personally, it is a matter of convenience. I like to pack away my older consoles, so they don't get damage by dust. If i want to play an older game, i can simply play it on the newer console. Having said that, it is not a deal breaker nor do i consider backwards compatibility an important factor when deciding to purchase a console.

It is nice thing to have, but it is not very important, because if it was that way, the $600 PS3 would have sold like crazy, but it did not and that is why Sony removed it, and then the PS3 began selling better because of the reduced price.

I would like to have BC, so considering that emulation through the digital versions of the games will eventually happen (like with PSP games on the VITA), I am buying all my games Digital lately XD.

It is essential to me and the fact the ps4 will not play my extensive ps3 library (mostly composed of not saleable psn titles) convinced me not to buy a ps4.

I haven't cared much about it in previous generation transitions but this time will be different. The ps4 and the NeXtBox will certainly look better than its predecessors but it will not be the leap in graphics we experienced before. As a matter of fact I guess Sony and Microsoft should expect slow adoption once the most hardcore audience is served. I can't see most more casual gamers looking at the new console and considering an upgrade as a must buy.

Backwards compatibility is important to me if I do not own the consoles predecessor. I didn't own a PS1, but I could play PS1 games on my PS2. I didn't own a Gamecube, but I could play Gamecube games on my Wii. If the PS4 had backwards compatibility that would be a huge incentive for me to get one, since I want to get a PS3 eventually.

I could care less

This is the first generational transition where we have to worry about protecting our digital investments. Backwards comparability has ever been more important.

Also, as far as digital games are concerned, backwards compatibility will allow games to be continually sold and extend said games life. Microsoft is currently hosting a huge digital game fire sale. If they announce that all your purchases carry over, that would be a major blow in their favor, make no mistake.

No offence, but it's weird seeing multiple Nintendo fans claiming backwards compatibility is deathly important. Were you not Nintendo fans from 4th -> 5th -> 6th gen of home consoles? Or did you just put up with the lack of backwards compatibility?

For me, I used to think it was a deathly important issue. But when PS3 didn't have backwards compatibility, I managed. I never trade my consoles in anyway so it was simply a matter of space to me, and I have enough space to have multiple consoles out at once.

Comparatively, my Wii is backwards compatible but I do not use it to play Gamecube games. I mostly play GC games with friends (Mario Kart; Super Smash; Wario Ware) and if we're doing that we simply dig the GC out because it's small and compact enough.

So yeah. It's a nice bonus to have, but I've learnt that it's far from a deal breaker for me.