Behold...THE FUTURE! Gotta love how people defend and celebrate the rise of online centric console gaming. Back in the PS2 days, games released fully tested and AAA were never totally broken. Now it's common place and people actually defend it. 

I think the hardest thing to deal with when you have a high IQ, is accepting that 90% of the population doesn't.

Uh...this isn't the first game they have done this. They revised the score of Battlefield 4 after it came out, so this is nothing new.  I think this is great and totally makes sense to do. 

Best link I could find:
http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf4/forum/threadview/2955064769593908643/

Actual review: http://www.polygon.com/2013/10/29/5040656/battlefield-4-review

Does Polygon have the right to have a credible opinion about anything? No.

Who cares? It's being a long time since Polygon lost their credibility.

Since that cheque from Microsoft...

I love the fact that developers can fix small glitches and get input from players to improve the experience. Testers can't catch every glitch and being able to patch out the ones that are missed is great. Having to patch an entire game because it is broken is just ridiculous. Quite frankly, having to patch in weather effects is ridiculous as well. The game was not ready to be released. Plain and simple. Just like Battlefield 4, it is going to be months before the game is truly complete...and that is just sad. But like you stated, people keep defending it, keep buying broken crap, and the cycle continues.

But that is not true, the PS2 had games with some horrible bugs, Soul Calibur III had a bug that could delete or corrupt all your savefiles on your memorycard..I would say that it was probably the worst bug that you can have as a gamer but hardly anyone knows it because it maybe only affect 10% of the players and most of us were not very active on the internet yet and did not knew the bug.  today you only need 10 pictures/videos of a malfunction of a console or bug from a game and the game will be called unplayable by gamers...

http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2014/10/19/driveclub-online-situation-update-states-most-players-should-be-able-to-connect/

The update of review scores is welcome and should be used by many other sites now that we are in the age of downloadable updates/patches. But i think the reduction of review scores should apply if a game turns worse, the game already had a messy launch and polygon still gave it a 7 (i think), they now reduce the score like they just realised the problems. Feels like they didnt even review it properly

Reviews shouldn't be dropped: rather, they should be appended to. But old articles probably won't be read as much as new ones hence probably won't happen.

But here's my point. Is having the ability to fix small glitches worth putting up with the Drive Clubs, Battlefields and the overall price gouging we've seen with games getting chopped in half and then released in DLC packages? I don't remember anyone complaining about any AAA games back in the day. No one complained about SMB or Super Metroid. No one bitched about Metal Gear Solid or OOT.

AAA games use to release IN FULL and for the most part, had nothing major wrong with them. If they did, they'd get panned and no one would buy them. But isn't that a GOOD thing? Shouldn't developers who lack skills and don't use testers get punished? 

That's my point. I honestly don't think it was worth it. I think it's caused more harm than good.