EXTomar

Unless the ending of Diablo 3 has you meeting a ghostly Deckard Cain that says "Nevermind your quest to save Sanctuary. You can either destroy everything supernatural, take over hell, or merge all humans with demons creating a hybrid" I think it would be impossible to be that bad. :)

DRM is a charged and loaded term and probably shouldn't be used here. In particular I'm not sure what is going on in Diablo 3 is DRM as much as function of a feature which some didn't want in a game like this. A bulk of the installer is filled with graphics and audio assets where almost nothing happens in the client. The biggest most intrusive thing the client appears to be doing now is checking you are trying to cheat by automating/botting. That isn't DRM where instead it is more like punkbuster/vac.

Blizzard should be taken to task for the launch problems but no one should be doing that under the guise that they are fighting DRM.

@ichthy Part of the reason why I keep treating Diablo 2 as a multiplayer game is because I spent almost no time in single player. Even when I shelved it and came back months later I never used it.

@MordeaniisChaos There was some quirky problems with CoD on release (how much of that was the usual "X is OP" I can't remember anymore) but the point is it isn't how old or how much change was made to a game, the idea of going back and revising a review at all is weird. It comes from the same place where fans think the reviewer is wrong and they should be corrected instead of some need to be accurate.

It is easy to see how much damage to their reputation Blizzard has due to all of this. No review sites need to help either the fans or Blizzard here.

@Anwar if you are talking about Giant Bomb in particular, click on the logo in the upper left and take your pick. I expect them to be working on setting up the next TNT, publishing articles, producing videos instead of firing up games and checking to see if their old reviews need to be modified let alone editing them.

Fine but then we go back to CoD games and change their scores because they degenerated to being heavily hacked? Do we go back and change the score for Gears1 and Gears2 because there were a couple of online didn't seem to work quite correctly?

The game doesn't matter but I'm trying to get across this is a dead end and waste of energy. Reviewers have better things to do than to check and recheck games and adjust scores.

Most games now require some online. In fact most PC and phone/tablet games active ask for a connection where it is increasingly rare to find one that doesn't. The software wants to be patched to the latest settings and versions. They want you to post to Twitter or Facebook. They want to post to an online leaderboard. They want to check something on the Internet like location, metadata, etc. Its already here were a lot of people are oblivious or don't care.

Should reviews for SWTOR be modified because patches 1.1 and 1.2 seem to have serious issues? This is a general topic and problem with all reviews where playing the guessing game review scores like this is not productive.

Personally my stance on this aspect is that review scores should stand as written unless there is a major editorial problem (ie. they get something just wrong or lied or other ethical issues). If the reviewer later regrets giving a game too low or high of a score then that is something they need to deal with instead of covering up with an edit way after the fact.

....that makes no sense Excast. How would a reviewer who published their review yesterday (or earlier) know there would be launch problems today?

Meh, I don't think Blizzard cares about piracy with Diablo 3 as much as they need to cover their asses with a full audit trail in the RMAH. They gave away millions of copies with that annual pass thing which seems to suggest they value having people running around in the game than paying for it.