Does a person have to torture themselves for 100 hours before being allowed to say a game is bad? Time played shouldn't really matter. First impression matters a lot to people. Just because a game has mmo elements doesn't give it special privilege when it comes to criticism. Lots of people put many hours into the Beta so the 2 hours stuff isn't really accurate.
Besides its not just server issues that people are bringing up. Some reviews are saying the AI is dumb. The missions are boring and repetitive etc. None of it really matters tho. The thumbs up/down paints a bigger picture on a game imo. If you are sitting at only 49% positive on launch day then there is something seriously wrong with the game.
The conspiracy theories with Ubisoft are silly as well. Like...people give Ubisoft 60$ so that they can have the right to hate on them? Sounds pretty crazy. Even if there are crazy people like that who despise Uplay I would assume they are a small minority that doesn't impact much in terms of reviews.
Maybe The Division is a really bad game, could be, I have no intention of ever playing it... I'm more concerned with the shitpost like "review" culture on Steam that has no useful information to offer and can hurt especially smaller games a lot...
Disgaea is a good example of that, the game was barely released for two hours and everybody posts "reviews" how bad the port is and so on... and yes there where problems, but nowhere near as bad as you would assume just looking at the Steam reviews...
And as with most small devs the bugs got fixed as fast as possible...
Maybe I'm just hating these super hateful, inpatient, cliche gamer types that are so fast to post and yell there opinion on the net...
I'm too old for this shit
And I'm not defending Ubisoft, but when people buy a 60$ game without waiting at least for some impressions/reviews and are disappointed afterwards that the game sucks oe they don't like it, well, live and learn