I don't see how they were wrong for reviewing the game on time.
They put it up a whole day in advance, that's not being on time, that's being
early. That's so they can get clicks and have the first coverage of the game. They're prioritizing their "business" or whatever than the consumers who are likely to buy the game based on what they say. And if shit hits the fan the very next day (which it did) it's on them for giving their reader-base (and others) a false idea of what to expect.
Maybe if in the review itself, somewhere
at the top where they put their hyperbolic statements/quotations they could put a very clear statement of the environment/conditions they were in when playing the game. OR, they could give a word of caution that x game is an always-online game and
may have issues launch day with being able to play it; so you may not be able to experience what they were if they put the review up early.
The fact of the matter is, the review was put up early and made no mention of there being any server issues
because they played on EA private servers which is but a dream to have right now in the eyes of the consumer. It was wrong of them to give the expectation that the servers would be fine. You can gather from their review, before all these changes, that the servers are fine because of them not mentioning a single thing about it.
It's also highly incompetent of them to have expected the servers would be okay. It's not until
after it happened they started stating "it was expected". Yeah, okay, keep telling people that you knew it was going to happen when you had your review up a day in advance rather than waiting like the rest of your competitors. Your actions speak louder than your words, Polygon.