They aren't obligated to provide compensation, but you should most definitely hold them accountable for their own behavior. There isn't anything fundamentally wrong with your point of view. The reality is that backward compatibility is standard for most entertainment devices. If you buy movies, music, or texts. You are pretty sure that those things are yours for life at this point. For them to not adhere to this most basic of standards does show a kind of contempt for the consumer. What a lot of posters in this thread are ignoring, and willfully so I might add. Is that a overwhelming majority of consumers want, and actively demand this feature in their devices.
Most people if they are honest with you, and unfortunately a lot of people aren't being fully honest in this thread. Yeah I know what a shock. View the abandonment of previous media to be nothing more then a devious money grab on the part of corporations. We accept built in obsolescence in our hardware, but most definitely not in the intellectual properties we have purchased. Worse yet there isn't even a good excuse in the eyes of your average consumer. We aren't moving from magnetic tape to discs, and even if that were the case. Most consumers with even a modicum of knowledge know that the intellectual property they bought is digital, and not analog in nature.
At the end of the day I think it boils down to basic customer service. There is a strong argument that can be made. That backward compatibility is the fulfillment of a unwritten contract between the customer and the provider. That just plain has everything to do with fairness. You bought their software in good faith, and they should reward that faith though a commitment to continuing support. Otherwise why should you as a consumer buy in the first place. If all you are really getting is a long term rental.
I know some here put a great deal of self worth into their brand of choice, and sadly some of them cannot separate what is in their own best self interest. From what is in the companies own best interest. In this case however the are one in the same. If this feature is lacking it will harm both. Sony didn't set out to abandon the feature during the last generation, but they got jammed up and had to make sacrifices. While it wasn't a good thing, and consumers didn't like that it happened. They understood that it was a price they had to pay to save some cash up front. If it happens again it won't be viewed like that. Consumers will assume it was purely premeditated and malicious.
Personally I think Sony is going to have learned from the mistakes it made with the previous console. Using the extra hardware to do backward compatibility was a bad design choice. They didn't see to it that the primary hardware could run the old software, because they thought that they would have secondary hardware to do the job. It was quick and dirty, and Sony paid the price. Sony will probably see to it that their next system won't rely on secondary hardware to get the job done. They will see to it that the new hardware will be able to emulate the previous hardware. I have never understood the logic that says it is impossible for other chips to mimic the Cell. All Sony needs to have done is start off with that in mind.
