There is a reason why every complainer here is an either Nintendo or Microsoft supporter.

It is inconvenient of course but its been known for a while since the architecture is different. Let's see how the streaming thing will work.

I think parents are more whipped these days than ever.  If a kid wants something enough, they'll get it.

I actually think backwards compatability is way more important at the start of the life cycle, as over the years with more and more titles released the need to go back to older ones is lessened.  When I got my launch 60 GB there were spans of multiple months that I would only play PS2 titles, so it would be nice if they had the cloud service up and running day one to fill in those gaps.  Not a dealbreaker for me though, as I grew up with the NES, SNES, N64, etc. so new system = new games was pretty standard stuff.

Until the issue is further clarified by Sony closer to launch though way too many people need to stop losing their minds over pure speculation.

Pretty sure people are more upset that their PSN games dont' transfer versus putting a disc in. 

And not full ps3 games through psn, they are upset they lose their indie psn games. 

I don't know.  When Wii U launched there were an awful lot of people and reviewers lambasting the fact that you had to launch a virtual console to access backward compatibility even within Nintendo supporters.  I just think it's another feature that is important to some and not to others.  Every console will have its trade-offs.  And there will alwasy be people on the internet there to bitch about every little thing.  And of course fanboys to blabber on whatever perceived shortcoming they can find.

It seems Sony had to make a trade-off to change architecture.  That may lose it some customers (afterall noone ever skipped a console becuase it did have BC)  but presumably they made the concious decision on those trade-offs and figured it was worth it.