I was using that 8GB to explain why 32-64GB might be a little on the high side potentially based on this gen, so since only 5-6GB is available to games, this just strengthen's that point. How many games specifically require all 8GB? Would more RAM and a $500 launch price have been a better idea for PS4, because 75 million PS4 owners and many more console owners in general don't seem to mind.

Well. Sony was going for a 4 GB cheaper machine but then the surveys showed that developers asked for more, so they finaly went with 8 and I guess it was a very good choise.

The point on releasing a slim is that is cheaper for Sony to do so, besides the new design and smaller size. If they can replace the APU for a new and chea per one mantaining all the performance and compatibility, then you can see a 5 teraflop machine that replace the old one. But I guess it would still be named ps4 pro slim, no matter that the apu is new. And it would only make sense if that choise is better than producing just a smaller old ps4 pro apu.

Of course it changed, but the change is minimal compared to PS3 vs PS4. 

It's no surprise that it took so long for the PS3 to be even emulated on PC, and many thought it never would do to the system's complexity. 

I tend to agree with those who say that remasters are better in this case since most of the multiplats from the PS3 era were better on 360 or PC anyway, and the meat of the quality exclusive library has already been ported to the much better PS4 (with the exception of MGS4).

I just hope what they did with the PS2 & PS3 "BC" doesn't become a trend because it won't work again next gen since most of the player base has a PS4. Last gen it was split between the 360, so tons of players scooped up remasters catching up on an exclusive they missed. I hope they're smart enough not to bank on this next gen.

And I'm still waiting for PS One classics to hit the PS4. I guess they want us to keep our PS3s and Vitas around for something...

Sony was nevr goong for a "cheaper machine". They were going foe anothr split memory system. 4GB of DDR3 and 4GB of GDDR5 cause at the time that was rhe most GDDR5 ram you could get. Its also why MS never even bothwred with GDDR5 cause MS were never goong to go with a split ram structure becaue of its obvious limitations and complexities. So MS focused on their workaround whicc meant them having a very custom APU.....

Then 4Gb GDDR5 chipa became available. 

No. Earlier in the developement they were thinking 4 GB total. Read at the bottom:

https://www.google.com.ar/amp/www.playstationlifestyle.net/2014/07/09/sonys-mark-cerny-andrew-house-talk-ps4-hdd-8gb-ram-decisions-unbundling-the-camera/amp/

Nonsense, and a myth that will be perpetuated ad infinitum it seems.

First of all, mixed memory would have required an extremely awkward memory interface design in the APU, because an additional ddr3 interface would have messed up the chip layout, and increased the die size considerably. You can't just drop something like that in the last minute and think "it will work anyhow".

Next, Sony knew very well that 4GBit chips would be available by the time the PS4 would go into actual mass manufacturing. Very likely not when they started the design cycle of the PS4 (although there probably was writing on the wall even back then, as it was all too logical that Samsung would be manufacturing bigger chips one day). But very likely at least a year before manufacturing of the PS4 started in earnest.

The cool thing is that they actually succeeded in convincing everyone (or at least the key competitor) that the PS4 would only have 4GB - up to the point when they actually ordered the larger chips. Which, in this special case, might have been less that a year before needing them (significantly increasing the price for the memory for the initial production runs). As the new chips were drop-ins for the older chips, no redesigning whatsoever of the APU was necessary which eased the decision to go for higher price.

At least one year before production starts, any console manufacturer has ordered all chips, probably with year-long contracts. (afaik, the memory for the X360 was ordered three years ahead of manufacturing). The rule is very simple: the earlier and the more you order, the cheaper it gets. And that amount/time/price curve is extremely brutal.

It is completely inconceivable that Sony ordered 300M+ 2GBit chips and basically in the last seconds told Samsung "Eh we take the 4GBit chips instead" - they would have sat on those (paid) 2GBit 300M+ chips because nobody would have taken them back.

Of course there’s will be a Pro slim, but it will have 4.2 TF, just like the first model. They’ll be going for higher efficiency, less temperature emission and cheaper production, not for more power. That’s how they’ve always done it and will continue to do so.

Sony had never released a Pro before. Period.
This is entirely new territory.

The Goal Posts still haven't moved for you.

Allot of people do care about functionality. - I very much cared that my Xbox One X wasn't able to exceed 1080P on my Quad HD display, I enjoyed that some of my favorite games got "enhanced" for free.
But that is not going to be applicable to everyone.

During the Playstation 3 era, Sony gamers were consistently lambasting the Xbox 360's lack of functionality, especially in regards to Wifi, Blu-Ray, Card Reader, User replaceable Hard Drive, Backwards Compatibility... List goes on. And they were genuine, relevant criticisms... The Xbox 360 was indeed lacking.

They are checkbox features, some will care for them, some will not, and that is okay.
And it's been good advertising for Microsoft, especially with Digital Foundry and other outlets doing comparisons on a pretty decent cadence.

Lots of games potentially. But they have no real choice on console.
Many games on PC do indeed exceed 8GB of System Memory + 2GB of video memory + Gigabytes for the OS and other crap.

It would have indeed been a stupid choice if they opted for 4GB of DRAM.

Citation needed.

The Playstation 3 Emulator is better than the Xbox 360 emulator. Seems complexity isn't what is holding it back.

I do agree that remasters are better most of the time, especially in regards to performance and image quality.
But backwards compatibility tends to be free.

Not really.
The Playstation 4 and Playstation 4 Pro already have an "Additional DDR3 Interface".

On the PC side of the equation... Some Socket 790GX motherboards had 128MB of DDR3 Ram soldered onto the motherboard to assist with the integrated graphics... This was in conjunction with DDR2 from traditional sticks.
If AMD could justify that for free integrated graphics... Well. You get the idea. - Of course the IGP was also not on-die at the time.

Many processors also support multiple DRAM technologies in the memory controller as well.

You are right that it would have increased the die size, but I doubt it would have been as considerable as one might have assumed, DDR3 at this point is a very known quantity and thus it's memory controllers are by modern standards... Simple.

Essentially you have two options... You add another "bridge" of some sort, or you build out your memory controller. Pro's and Con's to each approach.

Exactly. The Roadmaps for DRAM is laid out well in advanced.

Microsoft didn't build the Xbox One S for more power. That power is for HDR.
You seem to be complaining about an inconsequential issue in my eyes.

I had a launch Xbox One. The Xbox One S being released didn't make me feel alienated.
Now I have the Xbox One X. Time to move on.

You do know that the OG PS4 and PS4pro both use and support mixed Ram right?