well, more hardware iterations mean people will have to buy more consoles over time. consoles get their strong advantage weakened (you don't have to upgrade for a time). shorter console lifecycles would also lead to less time and interest to optimize coding techniques (because the next system is around the corner).

but yeah, since the new consoles are just standartized x86 pcs there is not TOO much to expect in the future. so i think because of that this generation is bound to be shorter than last gen. which means we will improve on the hardware side of things earlier, but not so much on the software side. more expensive for the gamers, cheaper for the software companies, and, of course more money for the console manufacturers.

So what about when u stand the PS4 vertically and its disc loader is to the side?

Still front loaded. Maybe one day they will make it top loaded though.

It's called front loaded because all consoles have a slot-in disc drive on the front side which hasn't happened before!

(beware the sarcasm - and no, I didn't read any posts in here before replying)

What are? Simply: none. It's just doom sayers that don't want to believe in PS4/X1 current success. PS4 is even comparing reasonabl to PS2 sales pattern and that's a good new. However, I agree that PS360 were slower to gain ground. But that isn't because this gen is front loaded, but because last gen the market leader (Wii) was front loaded. It stole share from the twins before burning and crashing by its own limitations.

Who said anything about lower sales or that it's a bad thing? Being more front loaded than last gen just means they will peak sooner, ur making this out to be more than it really is.

It literally makes no sense to make this argument right now. At all.

We're too early into the generation to know that for sure.

It's not doom sayers, read the responses, myself and others have explained quite well what it means.

That kind of statement is just popularized by people who don't have a slight knowledge of programming. It doesn't make any difference. PS3 and 360 already used standard GPUs, like PCs, simply because it isn't feasible anymore to create custom graphics hardware with the increased complexity.

But the CPU? It doesn't matter: x86, ARM, PowerPC. It's the same for the developer. The compiler does the job, since only the assembly code will be changed. And even then, modern x86 is way more RISC-like, so it isn't that different from Power. And please, don't say they are standardized PCs. Just the memory architecture, that is radically different, already makes the affirmation fake. And the CPU don't matter. They just moved to x86 because PowerPC development is basically halted because nobody uses. Apple ditched Power because x86 was as fast as Power. The performance advantage was gone and it just remained more expensive. Anyone who says that x86 or Power makes any difference probably never used a compiler in his life.

I think you have the console business figured all wrong.  

• (since the new consoles are just standartized x86 pcs) just means familiar hardware so not a lot of time will be spent familiarizing with hardware. which means, 
• better and more games come out sooner. which means 
• more game sales
• ( which means we will improve on the hardware side of things earlier)(next system is around the corner)( of course more money for the console manufacturers.) again wrong. You do realize that these console manufacturers make money primarily from software not hardware.
• no one, not the consumer, hardware manufacturer and definitely not the publishers wants a new console to come out every 4/5 years. the longer they can keep primarily supporting consoles with a large install base the better for them. and,
• if there is one thing that is not going to get improved anytime soon its the hardware. Current gen consoles are on a 28nm fan process think of it this way. PS360 launched on a 90nm fab process. A 28nm fab process in comparison is around 4 times smaller, hence why these consoles can be as much as 5-6 times more powerful. the only way possible you can have next gen console hardware that is at least 4-5 times more powerful than a PS4/XB1 in a console form factor is if fab processes improve by another x4 minimum order of magnitude. so we are talking 7-10nm fabrication. If you know anything about chip fabrication, you will know how almost impossible that is. To help put things in perpective Intel just started mass producing 14nm chips. TSMC (the guys that make the PS4/XB1 apu) are at least 2yrs away from hitting 14nm. Intels road maps suggests a 7nm processor in 2018 at best. That puts cheaper smaller less advanced chip foundries at least 1-2yrs behind them.