So by this logic, if there's a game that does not boot from disc, has a warning on it that says "internet connection required", and has a day 0 patch that makes the game work, it would be a useful review for someone to buy it 2 days early and post the review "Game doesn't boot at all 0/10"?
It's true that the reviews can only work with what they have, not what is promised, and I certainly don't think someone should pull their review because the dev claims the identified problems won't be present later on. I agree completely.
But the question becomes why should anyone read the review? As a buyer's guide? If the review doesn't represent the game they're buying, it isn't a useful buyer's guide. As a deep critical take on the game? A review that has obvious sentence structure, spelling, and grammar issues in the first paragraph based on a rapid playthrough of an advance-purchased copy (not even a review copy, to note) to be the first to print is hardly going to have depth for the ages. So, then, why read the review? You read it, so presumably there was something you were hoping to get out of it.
Reviewers are rightfully criticized if they have a pre-release review that praises a game to high heavens and servers are completely broken on launch. Because the review is not useful as a buyer's guide if it doesn't represent the experience the player will have. So presumably the reverse, where something is broken, disabled, or unfinished in the copy being reviewed but not for players, also applies.
The other thing I wanted to reply to is the idea that a day one patch is bad. You know this is a game that's going to get maybe a dozen major updates over its first year, right? This isn't deciding between releasing a broken game and releasing a working game, this is the reality that many, maybe even most games these days are constantly iterating on balance and content. I guess you guys missed out on Minecraft or something? Players should expect that the game they get is playable and honest about its status--obviously shipping a completely unfinished game and patching it a month later is unfair to people who were sold a pig in a poke. But this is a case of shipping an apparently finished game and then rapidly iterating on core mechanics before players even play it. Is the issue just fear that your console won't connect to the internet? I agree, games are becoming more "fragile" like that. But that seems a little abstract and big picture to pin on individual games.
I have no idea if this is a good game or not. I don't buy games at launch or for $60. But I am genuinely confused at this being a controversy. The blog gets the benefit of being the first to print by buying a pre-release copy. They also get the scrutiny of clearly rushing to print and also missing out on parts of the experience that day one players will have. Seems like a fair trade to me.
