So reviews are now properly one with the games industry. Released too soon with errors and patched up as an afterthought (usually only after public outcry).
In a sense, I disagree with changing review scores. They should be accurate from the outset, and held back if sufficient time or experience with the game has not been attained. Much like games. Allowing alterations only encourages a rushed review, in order to 'be first' and generate views, which can be fixed up later to save face.
We have Metacritic (sadly too important in the industry) which will not use updated review scores. An inaccurate review will permanently, unfairly bolster or tarnish any game. There is also the potential for this to be done intentionally, without any repercussions. Initial sales are similarly affected. With so much money on the line (game sales, site revenue, Metacritic related bonuses etc.) there is a clear conflict of interest and reviews need to be held to a higher standard.
Perhaps we need to start reviewing reviewers as well (and take control of that nasty weighting used by Metacritic, if the industry so insists upon using it). Marks can be awarded for consistency, accuracy and bias (towards publishers, genres etc.).