Even if it were somehow all true (lol), it's just handled so poorly. Instead of verifying that this tipster actually is who they say they are, the DualShockers writer just copy/pasted what they wrote, because it's "awfully detailed," and also maybe some of this stuff was second-sourced by, uh, who, exactly? What second source do they have that would be in a position to know some but not all of this information? I mean, come on.
Also, when a reporter uses anonymous sources as part of a story, he or she has to consider the motives of those sources, which means thinking something like "Hey, maybe I shouldn't use language like 'jaw-dropping visuals' or 'back with a bang' here, because this tipster could work for Sony, and clearly is writing this in the interest of generating excitement and selling PlayStations."
There's just so much disrespect for readers here, and I really wouldn't care about what some random insignificant website is doing if not for the fact that clearly this article has gotten a lot of eyeballs. Reporters need to be more responsible than this.
That line about "back with a bang" really stood out to me for the exact reasons you stated.