True. In most cases third care to push the boundaries of a console, just make it run well enough to run their games. This game should showcase a little change because consoles are being tailor made for the devs this time.

Exactly.  MS is rumored to reserve 3GB for the OS which is a lot.  The last rumor concerning the PS4 was 1GB which is pretty small with 8GB system.  I believe both systems will be somewhere in the middle

Do you know how Random Access Memory works?

It can't directly be used to improve graphics, what it's going to do is reduce the load time for objects to appear on screen, thus allowing more objects to appear on screen.

So the problem with making games for Wii U and PS4, isn't a graphicaly issue, most PS4 games will be based on engines designed for PS3. PS4 is more powerful, but you can run PS4 games on a Wii U without too much trouble (e.g. Battlefield 4 will run on PS3 and PS4), and it's even rumored that Unreal 4 will work on Wii U, just at minimum settings.

Anyway, the issue is, the number of objects on screen. If someone designs a PS4 game, which models millions of particles of sand, or rain at a time, that will be hard to port to the Wii U. You would have to change the structure of the game, so there is less sand/wind. More realistically, in a PS4 game you will have characters who have wind blowing a scarf, hair, or clothing around, but the Wii U version will have rigid cothing articles and hair (like most PS3/360 characters do).

To make a game work on both Wii U and PS4, and optimize both systems, you would have to design a game from the ground up to do this. However if a developer wanted to make a PS4/Wii U game, it wouldn't be hard at all.

----

So to answer your question, no, extra RAM will be used to model complex structures like hair and clothing movements from wind effects. To make a game work on WiiU, you would need to remove those effects entirely (because of the RAM difference) and make a small downgrade in graphics. However the drop in graphics wouldn't be that big, it would be the difference from playing a PC game on Medium vs. Max settings, but either way, it's still playable.

EDIT: Note, this probably won't happen though. When PS2 was around, most people developed games for the PS2, and they upgraded them for the Gamecube/X-Box. In the 8th gen, most people will develop games for the PS4/NextBox and only downgrade if it's possible.

We will see bigger worlds, better textures and more objects on the screen.

In the beginning it will be used for the "being lazy" again.

I mean with current consoles devs were forced to optimize the hell out of their code etc to make the games run etc... with Sony's 8gb of ram they can finally throw unoptimized "mess code" at the console.

I am pretty sure we will have games alot of inefficient games in the beginning and in a few years we will finally have games that make use of the 8gb of ram (well 7gb for games)

The games we will see in the first 2 years might work with 1-2gb of ram but because they are unoptimized they will use need alot more.

Devs might do this because a) its a new generation and programming is a bit harder than with consoles you had 7 years with. 2) it saves alot of money and because 1GB of ram is still 4x or even 8x the ram of ps360(depending on how you look at the PS3's ram) and its faster anyways we will still see a difference in graphics so there is no need right now to "use" all the Ram.

P.S. the "lazy" thing is also the reason why you read that devs love the huge amount of ram.

For most games yes graphics will be the primary advantage. But there will be games that use it for other things, there will be games that use it to push scale, variety, reactivity across the board with advanced physics, world persistence in open world games etc. When you hear stories of developers cutting features because Asian character sets push the game past memory limits killing performance on current consoles you start to understand just how constrained devs are with current systems.

There are also litte things that will improve with increased headroom. Things like menus being kept loaded into RAM so the game doesn't take a couple seconds to bring it up. Being able to have more than half a dozzen diferent highly detailed different character models on screen at once (most games today ether use instancing where they just duplicate a bunch of identical ones or use low detail models). Being able to cache a lot more allowing devs to avoid stutter in streaming based games. Even things like the number of sound effects and enemy barks you can have available in a single scene etc. 

Of course having the ability to do these things doesn't mean that all games will have them, not all games will be designed in a way that takes advantage of these things. And also these features can be expensive to implement so even if the design does allow for these things doesn't mean the budget will allow the devs to implement all of them.

I thought the 2GB limitation had more to do with Windows 32bits than anything else. The PS4 OS/kernel will be a 64 bits one. As well as only the most recent AMD GPUs (and there aren't many) passed the barrier of 2GB. Not to mention that the biggest limitation is the video RAM cost, something that Sony could overcome only God knows how.

Also the PS4 GPU is more like the 7970M (M as mobile) than the 7850. For the simple reason that it is energy saving. Not that this simple fact would change much about the RAM management, true. But it is also true that we have no frigging clue of what's really inside that chip. We just know that the memory bandwidth is higher than both 7850's and 7970M's. There could be, and most likely there is, the typical "secret sauce" we find in consoles. 

Still, after the debacle of the PS3 splitted RAM architecture to have 8GB of unified video RAM is a huge step forward. Even Skyrim at the 6th or 7th patch fixing the memory leaks could run just fine in the PS3 (I played it personally. Not even a freeze and the frame drops disappeared) , issues like that will never happen again. And more video RAM can be useful to pre-render and store some parts of the environment, while the GPU is not very busy. Sure, it must be optimized. That's why Naughty Dog games will look greater than ever while the multiplatform one, especially the ones ported from PC, will most likely run at a lower fps.

This is only academic anyway. The truth is that there are plenty of (PC) games that do not need to fully use the top GPUs. I can see big issue only with games like Crysis 4, unless they improve their stupid engine. After that, having for example Lara Croft with or without dynamic hair won't change my life nor may gaming leisure at all.

Partially. It will also be used for better engines eg. destructible scenery, more obejcts on screen at once, better AI etc. It just allows them to load more of everything at once.

i do not think the RAM will be used mainly for Graphical purposes because were not there yet. now maybe two years from now we will be able to use the PS4's full RAM capabilities for graphics. as for the WiiU , i don't think it was ever ment to be a system that had the abilities for Open world, RPGs,MMOs. they were just here for the kids and the kids games. this is why i think the WiiU and Nintendo will die.

Actually, it doesn't have more bandwidth dedicated to graphics than the 7850, remember, it uses a unified memory architecture, everything from the CPU, Hard Drive, Optical Drive, I/O stuff all share a chunk of that bandwidth, if you tax the entire system to 100% with allot of bus transfers, the bandwidth available to graphics will tank, the PS3 doesn't have EDRAM to make up for that hit.
That is the main problem with unified memory over split memory architectures that are found in the PC and to a lesser extent the PS3.

Teraflops wise, it's almost the same as a desktop Radeon 7850, a mid-range card, not a high-end one.

Skyrim was Bethesda's own fault, Skyrims game engine is essentially an upgraded Gamebryo engine which is the same engine found in Oblivion, hell, even allot of the shader code in Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Skyrim is the same, it's a horrible engine, with some benefits like amazing modding capability.
Remember Oblivion performs fairly horribly on the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 too, with lots of item pop-in, freezes and framerate issues, so it's not like they didn't have any experience in trying to get this game engine running on consoles.
It's just Bethesda has bad testers, period.

Actually, that's not entirely accurate.
It's pretty well known any high-end card made in the last 4-5 years on the PC can max pretty much max any console port at a 720P resolution that most console games run at anyway, with relative ease.

PC's do need to use 2-4 of the fastest GPU's on the market in tandem, not at 720P or 1080P, but at 8-10x higher in resolution, that's what the extra performance has allowed the PC gaming master race to achieve.
And let me tell you, until you game with Eyefinity/Surround Vision with that kind of resolution... You haven't really "gamed". :)
Heck, 5760x1080 is a massive step up to, the immersion can be incredible in some game titles.