Just wondering with all of the talk of systems being backwards compatible, does it really matter to people? Does it help you in your decisions of buying a system or not buying another system? Is it overrated? Is it underrated?

(And it appears as though you can choose more than once answer, please only give one answer.)

without a doubt, I prefer playing the older games on the newer systems, takes less space too.

Gotta have backwards compatibility. Better graphics, yes it takes less space. Its a matter of convenience, plus if you look at the ps2, you could get better graphics on some ps1 games.

What about in the example of the Wii, where you'd be buying new games online for whatever the price is (I've heard they'll be between $5 and $8)? Would you buy a "new" older game virtually, whether or not you have the cart? I can't say I would unless it's one of those games I can't find anywhere (like Earthbound) or is otherwise too expensive for the actual cart (like Final Fantasy II). Most of the other games I could probably find for as much or less if I hit a flea market or garage sale.

Might be slightly a stretch in the "backwards compatible" idea, but I think it still applies.

I just think Nintendo has opened up a new door for backwards compatbility with the virtual console.

I like the idea of getting all the games from Nintendo, Sega, and NEC, dating back to the mid '80s, all downloaded from the net to your Wii console for reasonable fees while getting to keep your Gamecube gems. It steps well past the cartridge-disc transition boundaries. No extra hardware or add-ons required. It sure beats trying to find all the cheap PC hack/emulator knock-offs that don't usually work right anyway.

I just hope the virtual console can accomodate a laptop as well.

Nothing against the big N's competitors, but redefining this entire concept, to me, matters more than Sony's and Microsoft's linear media playability "features."