Anonymous asked:Changing review scores after launch: why have you decided to not allow it?
For now we’re comfortable posting video coverage timed to a game’s release and following up with a review when it’s ready. It’s one of the big reasons why the Quick Look was implemented in the first place: To give people something to see for themselves on or around release day, when interest surrounding a game is typically at its highest. We didn’t originally anticipate that this content would end up becoming more popular than the reviews themselves, but it’s been a pretty happy accident, I suppose.
In some ways, the idea that the review itself needs to be the thing that lives on and remains relevant for all time is just absurd to begin with. Reviews are generally good for about 21 days, and after that, who cares? With that much time under its belt, more and more people will be turning to overall word of mouth and additional non-editorial sources for purchasing advice. Struggling against that tide to ensure that your one-page article remains useful just in case someone stumbles upon it six months later seems like a bad use of time. Leave them up for historical context, since some people are still interested in that sort of information, and move on. If games warrant further coverage as they change, post new coverage devoted to those changes. Maybe post links to that coverage at the end of the old review page?
People playing a service-driven game over a long stretch will go on to want dedicated coverage and insight from someone that has stayed with that game all along, not some reviewer who is cruising back into a game for a few days to see if the latest patch makes some part of an old review obsolete.