"But the PlayStation 4's focus on gaming — and only gaming — is undermined by a distinct lack of compelling software. That failing is sure to improve — better games and more of them will appear on the PlayStation 4 — but right now, this is a game console without a game to recommend it. Early adopters of the PS4 this fall are buying potential energy. We're just waiting for a place to spend it."
A "general impressions" wrap-up paragraph would be fine. A rating system with a very low granularity (Thumbs up/even/down for example) would even be acceptable.
A score of 7.5 implies, at the very least, a granularity of 20. This is only useful in a case where you have either 20 binary criteria, or ~5 criteria with some kind of sub-scoring system. Where, or what, are these criteria? Are they implicitly, yet obviously, defined through the content or structure of the article? No.
I'm not defending the PS4 - I am ranting at the profligacy of meaningless scoring systems throughout the entire video games industry.
One thing I take issue with is the completely arbitrary nature of the rating at the end. Why bother giving the platform a rating at all at this stage - it exists in a vacuum. Only time will tell how Sony's latest offering, along with its attempts at a platform, will stack up against Steam and Microsoft. Besides that - there seemed no clear criteria for the points system whatsoever.
It is at times like these that I am reminded of the "IGN: Fair. 10/10" meme.