A narrow perception on what a "review" or "impressions" should be is a dead end road.
What matters is if the thesis can support it. The Need For Speed impressions article's thesis is "wow this product really seems ill-thought-out for the PC market" so mentioning Origin in the final few sentences as further support of that thesis is totally valid. In this case, it's a small piece of secondary evidence, mentioned off the cuff, to make a larger allegation against the port's broader, big picture deficiencies. That's good writing. They're making a point and they're backing it up.
If it was just slandering Origin with a thesis that didn't make any sense, then I'd agree with you. But if the article is about a greater mindset or point about the game in relation to the industry, then by all means, mention whatever is important or backs up your point. That's how people write about everything. Why should video game reviews be any different?
Furthermore, just because you disagree with the evidence doesn't mean it's invalid to be used. Or, even, just because you disagree with the thesis doesn't mean the evidence isn't valid.