There's a few of reasons we have this "no pre-release questions" policy, attached to it rulings about reopening things when time hits. Some are political, others are quite mechanical.
- It's an invalid question at the time it is asked. We cannot field a question before the game's release, so it counts as a future point in time and is pointedly off-topic for the site.
- It's unfair to "seed" questions ahead of time, especially potentially valuable questions. This is less why we have the policy and more why we have stock in the policy, if that makes sense. If a question is indeed valuable, then it will naturally get asked post-release.
- Mechanically, it's a complete waste of everyone's time. A question asked after the release is no cost. Asked before the release, you have 5 people voting to close and then you have 5 people waiting to vote to reopen on the release date. The end results are identical, but we have more work to do that we have absolutely no obligation to perform for anyone.
The entire scenario is not ideal, but the ideal manifestation is that when a question gets closed as such, like a properly off-topic question, it should be deleted.
This didn't happen. So we have a furthermore less-than-ideal scenario on our shoulders. Made further less ideal by people voting to reopen, though it is their vote to have used and while I personally feel that it's somewhat mediocre to do, it is time spent and gone with. So how do we progress with this? Let's review the reasons.
- It is no longer an invalid question once we hit the release date. It is in fact a valid question.
- It may be a seed question, but everyone who spent their time reopening it, had all their opportunity to have asked it on their own. They chose to instead reopen it because at this stage, we have the question and it is in a fit state.
- Any further action is even more of a waste of time. Closing it again, reopening it again, even having this debate at all is a humongous waste of everyone's time for pretty much no good reason. The letter of our policy isn't undermined because we choose to listen to the spirit of the policy. Likewise, the spirit of the policy isn't wholly undermined because we choose to obey the letter of our policy.
Both sides of this argument have been correct. We're indeed screwing up in all directions. Reopening broke the letter of policy. Reclosing broke the spirit of policy.
At this stage, the original is now closed and we now have a newly asked version here: https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/129762/how-is-loot-shared-on-console-based-co-op-play. The whole thing is breaking things all over the place, so it's essentially an outside component to the whole of how our site works.
At this stage, keeping a live, valid question on the site has far exceeded anything about how it interacted with our policies to reach this stage. It cannot serve as an example of how this kind of situation can be resolved, it should not serve as such, it does not influence our ability to handle further breaches of policy. What we have is (assumedly, at least) valuable content and at this point, any further discussion or thought on its history is a waste of everyone's time and counterproductive towards the goals of everyone involved.
The entirety of our site is founded towards the production of content. It's our very mission, after all. Policy is important for allowing us to maintain our quality of content, and the livelihood of our site. I don't think for a moment that this kind of slip hampers the intent of policy, even if its history disregards policy entirely at this stage. Because at this stage, what we have is a question that, in some fashion, got asked, and we already squandered enough time discussing policy against content, further would be even more waste.