I'm perfectly happy with ps3 graphics, yes ps4 looks better especially when you are trying to do realistic graphics but I think the ps3 gets the job done quite well. The PS4 always had a big jump in graphic power it was the cpu power that was quite a low jump from ps3 infact with all the cell processor's working efficiently it actually has more computing power than ps4 if you don't factor in the gpu.
I would of thought the main difference is memory though, 16x more memory is a huge generational gap.
I personally haven't been as impressed as the transition from ps1 to ps2 or ps2 to ps3 definitely seems like diminishing returns to me. Still enjoying the fantastic range of ps4 software of course.
I think the popularity of the Switch shows that convenience and portability might actually be more important than performance to many people. Personally I love capable hardware but you see many popular Switch games and their hardware requirements are quite low nothing the ps3 or 360 couldn't do most of the time. I enjoy quite a few android games on my phone, tablet, set top box etc. I guess my point is people aren't quite as impressed with hardware capabilities as they used to be and keeping hardware affordable is more important nowadays. The PS1 and Sega Saturn were about £400 back in 1995 approx which is about £750 in todays money, almost double. I think £750 would produce a pretty amazing console today but no one seems to want to go there probably commercial suicide.
Just making the point that its clear we aren't willing to invest so much money into a console nowadays and therefore shouldn't expect such huge generational differences.
Strong points made. PS4 games looks great, but I'm still impressed by late-gen PS3 titles.
Then again, there are still moments when I'm playing NES games and think: "this looks sharp!"
Retro Tech Select - My Youtube channel. Covers throwback consumer electronics with a focus on "vid'ya games."