no it's not that they don't matter... they will be very real and any benchmark will show them and any person activelly looking for the differences will see it.... there is no doubt about that...

what I'm saying is with the quality we will reach on both consoles and with the set up most people have (which more than likely will stay the same as last gen or in the same category)  it won't be as noticeable or at least become less and less noticeable

on the other hand if next gens pushes 4K graphics and prices of large 4k displays become accessible to more people you will see another jump since we are changing technology or at least we are changing the base line...

to be clear I'm talking about human perception after a certain amount of polygons are pushed all other things kept equal (same display, same distance from the display) you will reach a point where extra stuff will get less and less noticeable....

but if I change display upgrade from a fullHD 1080p 50" LCD to a 4K 80" OLED display stay at the same distance than before and get a console that pushes 4k I will see again a big jump in quality....

I just want to play devil's advocate a little bit to illustrate some points.

1. Despite upgrade to 4k, it's still entirely dependant on the programmer and the hardware to take advantage of the available technology. Those polygons cost serious $$$
2. While the upgrade to 4k changes the baseline, there is also diminishing returns on resolution.
3. 4k is actually only double 1080p, and most gamers last gen played in 540 to 720. Even with the same hdtv, gamers are playing this gen (psOne) at roughly 2x the res of last gen (ps360)

I think much more importantly than resolution (this gen) we are going to be seeing new technology. True it's hard to tell the difference sometimes. Developers understand this, and they will work to create a difference....through lighting, particle effects, interactivity, scale, smoke, hair, clothing. These are the things that are really going to separate the gens moving forward...and the new consoles are much more capable than just having more processing for resolution. That's my take, at least.

I did forget about those other forms of income through merchandising and games and blu ray sales and in that context it makes much more sense.     

Progress would be slower but since I don't think consumers are hurting for pretty things to look at I don't think it matters if we slow down that progression one bit or even massively.  Not all companies can afford to be ahead of the curve.  I don't think that needs to be the mantra of more than the huge one's whom can burden themselves with such costs.

In this new context I don't mind Pixar spending money on R&D either.  I do mind it for almost every non big 3 developer.  I suppose EA, Activision, Ubisoft can do what they please but games selling 3 million within a year shouldn't be a cause to close a studio or seen as unprofitable.  We don't need developers delaying games just to make them prettier. I mean especially as a free to play title have they even calculated how many ad views this delay will add to the cost?  

Wii Fit spent just about as much if not more on advertising as it did on the development of the game. Though that was still only 1/5 of what Atvi and EA spent.  That marketing noise drowns out almost everything else.  It creates another toxic environment where most can only spend more to get ahead. As if the graphics arm race wasn't enough to do them in.

What?  I would argue the exact opposite.  There were massive differences between those gens, easily visable to even the most casual observer.  From 4 to 5 we went from 2D to 3D.  That is a much bigger change than what we saw last gen.  I posted pictures earlier in the thread.  The differences are becoming smaller and smaller as we go.

With a 2D platform, going from one gen to the next isn't that dramatic.  Sure things get more colourful, more detail (they go from blocks, to awkward things, to actually looking like something, but it doesn't shock and awe so much yet.  That came later.

I agree going from 2D to 3D was a big change.  But with 5th gen, 3D started taking baby steps.  It was neat, but still more of a 'what could be someday' cartoony look, rather than a more realistic look to games. We didn't really see that till 6th.  They looked better, but still not that 'real.'

Now with 7th gen we had two things.  A big leap in photo realism (aka Skyrim) AND a big leap in TV size and resolution.  So last gen we were really spoiled with 'two gens of graphics leaps' in one.  I remember seeing a guy (probably 20-30ish) at a store who mom was ushering him on and he wanted to watch the football game.  It wasn’t until later I realize that their were two kids on the other side of the display playing the game.  They had achieved enough realism that the guy thought it was a real game.

This gen is starting off as a nice refinement of the last as far as graphics.  Things look better, run smoother, have much more detail and texture.  But it’s not the shocking leap we saw last time – but a great refinement.  Tessellation is visually delicious.  It allows you to get closer to something and the detail just increases.  It the best step so far (I think) this gen that prevents one from getting ‘kick out’ of that moment where you remember oh, that detail is bad, I’m playing a game..  But even so, I’m already spoiled and my last gen games just aren’t looking as good as they were.

I like how this new gen looks. 

Whether or not it shocks or awes you in particular, going from blocky, barely recognizable objects to clear sprites and backgrounds is a massive difference.  Much bigger than just the ever increasing detail which we have gotten from the transitions of gens 5 through 8.

Sure the 5th gen was the first steps into 3D.  That does not mean it was not a huge leap from the previous gen.  All we have seen since is smaller and smaller increases in graphical detail.  I agree that 6 to 7 was a bigger leap than many expected out of the generation.  But look at 5 to 6 right before it.  We go from extremely blocky, angular geometry to much more detailed, smooth models.  We vastly increase draw distances.  We add a bunch of better looking effects.  Did all that also increase from 6 to 7 and 7 to 8?  Absolutely it did.  It is just that the closer you get to realism, the easier it is to plateau.

I'll just post a link to my pictures instead of the pictures again: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=6110371

If you went back and compared games like Perfect Dark Zero to MGS 3 or Gran Turismo 4 to Ridge Racer 6, you wouldn't see a huge gap in difference either. The early generation games normally only have higher resolutions and not much else. Since 480p to 720p is a much bigger difference than 720p to 1080p (or less with XBOne), we don't see as dramatic a shift for early games this gen. However, future games that next gen exclusive like The Order or inFAMOUS will look much better.

Resistance 1 looked  like hi res PS2 game. It's funny how people's memory's run thin.

At least give the systems a few years where they don't have to worry about cross platforming games for last gen. My lord...

Yes, exactly.  Most of the gens don't really change much- pretty 2D, awkard 3D, then good 3D, then it gets a bit better.  Yes, to us that know and study it we can point out the difference.  Like an art grad student. 

Then we arrive at the current gen: