Well then good reviewers are mainly Youtubers now so. They'll only check differing hardware if they are forced and come upon issues for the most part.  Reviewing on a 5090 is absolutely pointless for most people as is the case with reviewing on a PRO. It just makes no sense, Base (98% of people) should be the one for the review and the PRO should be something that is tested for what bells and whistles are in use for it. 

I think you're mixing up the versions lol. The first Mortal Kombat on SNES had no blood whatsoever (and ran like warm ass). The Genesis did, but you had to use a code. The second one had everything right out of the box for both versions, no code needed.

I don't think it should be separate no. A reviewer can point out when performance is the only notable issue to show that the game would be near perfect if that was fixed though.

For the post launch fix part I think that works out since it means there's a punishment for rushing out a game before it's truly ready. If a developer doesn't want their game to be forever tainted by worse reviews at launch they should make sure to release games when they are ready.

I am not "most people" I own every console and I have multiple PC's of difference capabilities and even eras.
A good reviewer -will- cover the differences of all versions so I can make the appropriate choice on which platform to buy for.

To be fair, video game reviewers... And I mean good ones are few and far between these days, none really touch upon the technical nuances of the underlying technology of the engine.

So that pretty much just leaves Eurogamer/Digital Foundry that meets my review needs, even then I wish they would talk about the more low-level stuff rather than dumbed down topics to appeal to a more technically-illiterate audience.

They should use the system that game is intended to be played.

Why not, you guys sure have no problem counting the multiple SKUs for the Switch.