Expect a demo from developer but not reviews from others to judge a game. These reviews are hurting developers a lot because the many gamers are skipping games because of reviews if the game did not get 85+ and the development cost for games is too much these days. So, if the game did not do sales then Studios will close and gamers will get less games.

Some replies here are way too extreme. First of all, yes reviews when correctly written CAN help to know the game mechanichs as well some details regarding different aspects (being story, gameplay, sound, music, and so on)
Granted, nowadays most reviews are lame and not too helpful, but there are still some useful reviewers (for example siliconera reviews are good, they are made in a gamer point of view more so than a "professional" pov)

So yeah, people are not lame for reading (and wanting) reviews =.=

I don't see the big deal... :S

They are doing this with every big IP, publishers don't want ppl to know their game might not live the hype so reviews release after the game releases ...... Watchdogs benefited greatly from that

I think it will become more and more common for companies to prevents review sites from releasing reviews early, especially on big releases. I think it's sad but it's the reality of their practices.

Man reading some of the impressions online at places like GAF and watching some of GB's stream (and a couple others) I am starting to legitimately think they fear the bad review, which makes me feel good because it means maybe journalism isn't up for sale as much as I have believed it to be.

One of the biggest complaints is that if you're in an area on a mission and someone finishes it, even someone random and not with you, it resets the mission for the planet, your progress included. I thought for sure this was one of my beta complaints that would be fixed first, seems so stupid. Apparently not though.

And yet.. I almost still wanna buy just because I am that much of a sucker for loot games and there is little else to play right now as I have bored a bit with Diablo.

It's an MMO game that requires large numbers of people online to make the game feel alive/working.

I see no problem in this at all.

Also as others have said, who the hell relies on reviews these days to consider getting a game... i mean there was an alpha/beta available, and its unlikely to score less than 7... so if site A gives it 7 and another gives it 10... then what.. The only thing reviews can give you is something that sounds rubbish, but many times I've played a game thats got 4/10 or 6/10 and they've been awesome. (Mafia 2 and Dead Island being two poorly reviewed games).

Maybe the reviews aren't as good as what they were expecting.

Review scores are a joke, but a good review is a good review. Especially from someone who's into the genre and goes in-depth.

I would rather have the reviewers test the game on live servers than have BS reviews... like by example Battlefield 4 and many many other MP focussed games.

Also, we had tons of people giving their opinion on the Alpha & Beta version (I.E. it's addictive and people love it).

Actually, reviews should always be done on a retail version of the game, preferably bought by the site that will have their staff review the game.

Everything else is previews, which is good enough to let the enthousiasts know if they want to take the risk to buy day one or order.