Honestly, I've never been upset at the prospect of a graphical downgrade. Why? I'm an artist. I take commissions and write short stories for a living and I know first hand that sometimes you have to make sacrifices to meet deadlines or to work within the constraints of your employer.
If Ubisoft wants to make the graphics on Watch_Dogs as pretty as they were in the reveal trailer but the PS4/Xbone can't render it that well while also programming the rest of the world, sacrifices must be made. They may be able to make the graphics that pretty but don't have the time/resources/understanding to make it work on limited hardware within the time constraints.
Compromise is the key in an artistic medium, and videogames are no different. I mean, look at Superman's Upper Lip (tm) in justice League. If you think we don't have the technology to make good lip animations, you are wrong. However, the reshoots and the limited time meant that they couldn't do it justice. Throw all the money in the world at it, there was no way they could do that without pushing the release date back and we all know how grumpy fans and investors can be if a release date is pushed back.
Hoo boy, do you NOT want to push back a release date.
So if it becomes clear that a game isn't going to be as good as planned by release date, it's a no-win scenario. It's either sacrifice where you can and get it out on time and suffer the wrath of fans whining about graphical downgrades or delay it and face the backlash of fans whining about the game being delayed.
I think it was Shigeru Miyamoto who said "A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad."
My Console Library:
PS5, Switch, XSX
PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360
3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android
