Backwards compatibility is less of a big deal than I think people assume. Yeah it was great to have in a few consoles but it's technically unfeasible to have at a realistic cost point. Generally speaking it was a pretty short-lived trend - the only "truly" BC consoles were the PS2 and Wii. The 360 and PS3 had something of an emulation layer that was really poorly supported and even was removed from later PS3 models. Honestly, considering how damning the overall presentation was for the One, I think the lack of BC is a silly one to get up in arms about.

As for the rest, it's a joke for gamers but I still think they're gonna move hella units on the living room features. I see it as being this gen's Wii in terms of mass appeal and use for either casual gaming or no gaming whatsoever (remember, the Wii was and may still be the #1 most used device for streaming Netflix). I have absolutely no interest in this box. Most likely I'll do what I have been doing - a Sony console and a PC, and I'm even on the fence about the Sony console depending on the exclusives. With my PC set up in the living room with a wireless KB+M and a 360 controller, I don't even feel like I really need a console. I'd just be really sad to miss out on the amazing exclusives. Uncharted, MGS4 and Little Big Planet were what made the PS3 absolutely worth the cash for me.

Meanwhile, there have been exactly 0 exclusives on any MS system that have been worth buying the system for. I know a lot of people prefer it for the online and the general service they provide, and those people will still probably buy the One. But I also believe enough people have been alienated by MS's move to casual-ify the console that this won't see the same explosive adoption that the 360 did, at least not by serious gamers.