In part, you can thank the response to "sensational" reviews like Eurogamers Uncharted 3 review, where they had the gall to give it an 8/10 -
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...ception-review
Which was not received well by the fandom -
https://kotaku.com/that-uncharted-3-...-about-5853319
And we have countless more recent examples of reviewers giving a game a "controversial" score and being targeted for harassment as a result. It even happened with Cyberpunk, with people both attacking Liana at Game Informer for reporting on the epileptic siezures and Kallie at GameSpot for a "low" score and for calling out the poor and apparently mostly pointless crafting system.
It's a risk with enthusiast media vs. proper critique, and I imagine that given the love for CDPR at the time that even with the flaws in the PC version folks were looking to give them the benefit of the doubt.
It's a bit of a chicken/egg problem on if these lower quality reviews are because of the enthusiast nature of the media or whether they're afraid of backlash from readers who take something as trivial as a low score and use it as justification to launch a harassment campaign. It doesn't help that CDPR intentionally (as is their right) withheld the console versions until launch day to present a misleading image of what the game was like at launch.
But I'm amused at the way they're responding to gamers vs. investors right now -
Gamers - Sorry we screwed up, really. We messed up and are wrong, and we'll fix it. Please be excited.
Investors - No, we didn't screw up or mess up at all. We did nothing wrong. We will fight you in court to prove we did nothing wrong and didn't mess up at all.