Definitely beneficial. When a new or updated version of a game releases, I want an accurate assessment of that version at the time it's coming out because that's when critic reviews are most useful. Dragon Quest XI was already a very good JRPG, but when the delayed Switch version released with significant improvements over the original release, the reviews and scores for that version reflected those improvements and no doubt enticed at least a few consumers to double-dip. Same concept with Persona 5 Royal.
As for the idea that reviews should be updated over time to match the modern era of post-release development cycles, I think it not only would be setting a bad precedent to encourage the release of more unfinished games, but it's also completely unnecessary; once a game has been publicly available and playable for months or years, there'll be more than enough ongoing player feedback to reflect the current state of the game, so critic reviews become increasingly irrelevant by that point.
On a side-note: The recent release of Ghostwire Tokyo on Xbox for some reason has a much higher metascore than the PS5 version, albeit with barely over a dozen reviews, even though that version has been proven to actually play worse. Seems like the reviewers were just as lazy as the devs in this case.
