For me it is the PS5.
I have nerver owned an XBox, and my last Nintendo console was the N64. PS-games just cater more to my tastes as of now. Let's see some PS5 games already.
Also, I just have the og PS4 and I feel its age already. This will be an incredible step up for me from a performance standpoint. OG PS4 almost can't handle Days Gone (which I get is more of a Days Gone problem, than a PS4-problem. But still, I think it would not be a problem on the PS5. Bring it on.)
The next God of war, Horizon, Gran Turismo, Spider Man - just with those as good chances I cannot imagine not getting it.

It depends on the games, so until then I am fine with the PS4/PC right now. Switch is getting closer to me wanting to buy it, but it just needs a few more good games.

What is there to look forward to? Short loading times? We have that on PC since forever.

It's gonna be a design difference but not necessarily a speed difference. Just like in old times where they used elevator rides for loading, you'll see similar tricks. Be that being spawned in a corridor so that the world outside can load or just a bit longer black transition between scenes. The SSDs in the consoles aren't miracles and general PC SSDs are just as fast where it counts.

Loading screens in general have been phased out more and more and actual loading times aren't bottlenecked by how fast your SSD is, but other processes in the background. Loading times haven't been a thing on PC for some time now. The only time where PC gamers notice them is when console players take longer to join the lobby.

I'm not sure as to why we'd think of it that way, seeing as how we will soon enough, not a year or years later kind of when either. Which is why I think of "it's the absolute cutting edge" look at PS5's SSD as a non sequitur.

Strangely enough, the Xbox Series X. I've had a PS3, PS4, PSP and Vita and only ever owned an Xbox360 which I later sold and replaced with a PS3. But this time I like Microsoft's approach. They have the more powerful platform, invest more in exclusives than before and generally seem to avoid mistakes (unlike last generation). Also, I like the controller layout better but ultimately still bought Playstation products.

The backwards compatibility is also great and is going to become ever more important, as we can see with the Switch and with more and more actual classics available. 20 years ago there was only a handful of classic games (as in high quality, timeless masterpieces) as gaming was still so young. But the number keeps increasing each year and Microsoft seems to be going all in on this one which I like.

I also expect the Series X to be more successful than the Xbox One and the PS5 to have somewhat lower sales than the PS4.

None yet. I actually like the look of the Series X, and am looking to get a 4K player, but I don't have an idea of what the line-ups will even look like yet.

I'm a little worried about some of the decisions Sony's been making recently, but having said that I haven't really seen anything which makes me think the Series X is going to turn the tables in the next generation.

I think you're vastly overestimating developers willingness to design specifically around high SSD speeds when there is next to no benefit compared to traditional design. You will always have a fast experience with an SSD no matter if the game was designed for it or not. Hell, you don't even need SSDs at all for fast loading times. All you need is enough RAM and a predictive loader. Modern GPUs hold everything they need in VRAM without the need to constantly stream large amounts of data from storage. The use cases where lots of data needs to suddenly be streamed to RAM/VRAM are limited and mostly only occur when you start up a game. This is great for the instant game resume feature on the consoles but less useful from within the game.

Take a normal use case for example. An open world game is the most taxing thing when it comes to heavy visual applications. Lots of of high quality assets at the same time that need to be constantly loaded in to be rendered. Pop ins are basically eliminated on SSDs despite games not being designed specifically for SSDs. Now imagine fast traveling between two far away places with completely different textures. Another very taxing activity as lots of assets will have to be exchanged within the VRAM. In this case you will have a loading screen for HDD users while for SSD users it's barely there and the bottleneck lies within the CPU and GPU to construct the scene. Now if you designed that for SSD only you will maybe completely lose the loading screen that pops up for a second but it'll be replaced by something else, a one second black screen or other kind of transition. Because even with the fastest SSDs loading won't be instantaneous. If it is instantaneous then the data was already present in RAM since memory bandwidth is about 100 times faster than the fastest SSDs.

So in that case "optimizing for SSD" would mean nothing else but replacing a loading screen with something else while loading just as fast. Maybe you can name a specific use case where it is needed to specifically code with SSDs in mind to get a significant speed boost.

It's not just about SSD, the SSD on PS5 are used as RAM to be exact. They are  literally lifting the GPU workload on compressing and decompressing duty to IO and also lifting the heavy duty on memory bottleneck on GPU. That's why. This features  is the most wanted aspect from GPU vendor and game developer even more then more CU account.  Even Nvidia said this a couple of times on hw important memory bottleneck  is and how expensives VRAM is .

They did this because VRAM is expensive and will be like that for a couple a year a head. That's why they trying to use SSD as a system RAM. Of course the SSD is still slow compared to RAM especially VRAM , but they made a lot of trick to tackle that problem.  So SSD will be game changer for the whole industries even for PC . Hell they already this on PC in 2016 with Radeon Pro SSG . It's really revolutionary.