I think the new console are more than just upgraded graphics, which seems to be the article writers suggestion. They are a fresh start, the extra power allows them to have more features, runs apps faster, implement ideas that aren't possible on current gen consoles.
In Sonys case they made their console easier to develop on as well as deep with "coding [close] to the metal" allowing devs to get even more out of the system than they would from a similarly spec'd PC.
They've also become very indie friendly and the ease of development helps. Self publishing is huge but with it being so easy to code for the PS4 the smaller devs don't have to fear the strange architecture like some might have with the PS3.

On top of all of this we needed new system because the console gaming industry was getting tired. Sales were going down and new consoles breathe life into the whole industry. There were a few games that did great this year but a lot fell flat (sales wise) this year because people have been ready to move on.

The question has been asked many times and I think it's something everybody knows the answer to already.

If you have upgraded from one generation to a newer one, then you know the possibilities of what can be brought into a game opens up. For example, making a leap from the 2D era to 3D, how was that possible? With new hardware and it will always be like that. New hardware doesn't just mean a graphical improvement, it means the large leaps from A to B in physics, A.I., amount of objects in one screen, etc. It's always going to be an improvement and most people who have the money will end up upgrading their console at some point. There shouldn't be any questions of "why we don't need new consoles or why we do" because the answer is simple, it's for improvements and we don't want to stay behind. We're a generation of people always eager to try out the latest and best technology out there no matter what.

Improvement... Pssshh i just get it to show off at the peasants that could not afford the latest gadget muhahahahaha :)

You took the words right outta my mouth lol

This!.... why was this generation so effing long anyway?

More than that, it's logistically untenable. Inevitably, when teams get too large, how do you keep tabs on accountability? I suspect this massive team size is a consequence of the perfectionism streak Naughty Dog has.

I wish we could have so many people working on something and it turns out great because I'm all for collaboration in spirit - the problem is too many people as part of the larger team and smaller units. Suppose for example that you have too many people in the art department; you will very often come up against fiercely competing visions for how things should look. That competitive vision will cause friction between team members, team doesn't work as a unit, the back and forth can further delay parts that the other departments are waiting for, etc etc.

A 200-person team says, to me, that we need to scale back game development. Even if it means we go back to PS2 era costs and scale, why not? Those games are still great fun, the budgets were in check, and you could literally break the 200-man team into like 10 20-man teams working on different projects.