You don't understand, companies send out review copies in advice, sometimes weeks.  So when they received the copy of LBP3(idk how early they got LBP3 but it could have been a couple weeks) they reviewed it.  Then when the embargo lifted they gave their review.  That's how reviews work, otherwise people would be purchasing games blind, hince the point of a review.  If everyone did what you say, then we would have to wait several days after the release of each game for reviews to come out and that could result any many bad purchases.  It's just the way things are, if the company wanted better reviews from LBP3 then they should have included that patch with the advanced review copy.

It doesn't take that much energy to download a patch that came out day one. All it takes is a few minutes. Driveclub, on the other hard, took weeks for the online portiont to start functioning properly. Maybe there was a lack of communication where Sumo Digital didn't tell sites to download the day one patch before reviewing. Nonetheless, the reviews that dock LBP3 for having a lot of bugs don't give fair judgement because the bug-fixing patch was readily available and assessable.

I'm not defending anything, i'm saying it how it is.  If I point out an apple on a tree that isn't ripe, and I say,"eat this right now and tell me what you think? "  Are you then gonna wait 2 weeks for it to ripen and then tell me how the apple was?  Of course not (though in this example you could refuse, but lets just say you can't for arguments sake).  It's the exact same thing with reviews, we as consumers expect reviews BEFORE the game comes out, how else would we know whether we should buy it or not?  If they gave an incomplete version of LBP3 to review, then they will review what they gave.  It's the company that made the games fault for not giving the reviewer a "complete" version of the game, not the reviewers fault.  Now, as for the journalist who did the review, that's a different story, but it is absolutely "logical" for a reviewer to review what they were given and not to wait 2 weeks for the issues to be fixed.

80+ games where are you? ):

There has to be an Oxymoron here somwhere XD

The review was already written, they were just waiting for the embargo to lift.  Why should they have to download a patch and then play the game all over?  That makes no sense from a business stand point.  If they already played the game and wrote the review, there is no point for them to do that again.  From a business standpoint, they just paid a journalist probably hundreds dollars depending on how much that journalist makes, to write this review.  And now you are asking them to pay hundreds more because a new patch came out?  That makes 0 sense.

Um.... the sites can update their reviews, you know? Just because you download a patch, doesn't mean you have to do the entire review again. Did you not see Polygon update their reviews on Driveclub and Halo: MCC? And paying 100s more to journalists because a new patch came out is purely hyperbolic. I have no idea where you got that from and you should know better than that.

Example

"UPDATE: We have recently downloaded the Day One patch and all the bugs that used to hold back the gameplay experience no longer occur."

Simple, concise, and to the point.

If you have no idea where I came up with that, you should probably not be telling me I should know better, you should also not call it "purely hyperbolic."  A better option would be to ask me, because you don't know, and then make a comment about my description for how I came up with that.  

But because I'm nice I'll try to explain it to you.

First there is the cost for the journalist.  I don't know exactly how they get paid, whether it's a flat amount, or hourly.  As well as if they are paid to play the game, or just paid for writting the article(if you think this cost is under 100 bucks you are fooling youself).  Plus there is the issue of internet traffic.  Obviously the reviews that come out first are gonna get MORE traffic than those that come later.  

As for your update....well, that's up to the journalist.  If they want to play the game from start to finish and then update their review they can, if they want to just read the patch notes and just assume the bugs are fixed, they can.  Or if these bug fixes are purely endgame fixes, then maybe they can test that without having to start over.  Either way, it cost more money to update reviews, and would it be better for this journalist to update their old review, or to write a new article?  Ultimately it comes down to business, and most likely, what will get them more traffic, and the answer to that is likely to not wait till day1 to start playing the game.

You admit that you don't know and yet you made your claims earlier. That's not a smart thing to do and it only increases my suspicion of whether your arguments hold water. You just cannot make such hasty conclusions like that. That's why I said you should know better.

As for the second bolded, of course it costs more money. A single cent more will count as "more money". And with the example I provided above, it would not cost that much more anyways. Just a few sentences that are to the point and easy peasy. Just like that.

It's a must have for me and for alot of people. If you let the media think for you and define your choices, than you've already lost the battle and don't even know it.