Agreed on most of this, however, for those like myself who think online on consoles is bullshit anyway, if the SP works, it's hardly unplayable.

I don't think gaming journalists should have to take time out of playing or reviewing another game, just to go back and update a review...

If developers want good reviews for their game, they shouldn't release a broken product to begin with. Those reviews should act as a reflection of that developer for future games they make as well. It's a nice reference point really.

Most reviews are tagged with a date. If the information and judgement within is accurate at the time of writing it is fair. Anyone reading said review can tell when it was posted. Developerd and publishers should not release broken games in the first place. Parching is a poor excuse.

Why they had a extra year to get there game ready and couldn't so no there stuck with there score.

And if we did have reviewers change the score then when does if start after every patch or after a certain time has passed

The score doesn't mean much anyway. It would be useful if they linked the updates to the original review article. It's not too hard to find anyway. For example on Eurogamer search for Driveclub and you get a full page with the progression of the game. It is a bit odd you have to read the Digital foundry article to find out anything about the actual car handling though.

Plus EG might give it a lower score with weather, The reviewer was already complaining about the corner cutting penalties he got. Imagine that with less grip, lower visibility, distracting lightning flashes and still no collectibles to find in the scenery :)

I think it matters. Many people base their purchase decision on reviews if they are unsure about buying a game. 

I think it deserves an updated review but at the same time, developers need to learn from this and stop shipping unfinished or broken games.

Not updated reviews. But I think it would be a fair thing for gaming websites to do articles that revisit DC, and come to a conclusion about the extent to which the updates and improvements have made the game a more compelling product.

"When we reviewed the game we weren't really able to strongly recommend it. And now that we've seen the progress Evolution has made we can...

recommend it as a very good racer which can stand proudly next to the best in the genre.

or

confirm our original opinion, and while things have changed on the surface the fundamentals of the game have not improved and it's just not a very good game. It's the lipstick on a pig scenario.

All big review sites should revisit games after large updates, otherwise the review posted is both out-of-date and misleading, a review for a version of a game that no longer exists or available. Maybe tag the new review with a quick summary of the original review for posterity.

Nice to see one magazine taking another look at the game in light of the changes -

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-driveclub-revisited-is-dynamic-weather-a-game-changer