Well? Like Diablo III for example? That game requires online activation, and since it has basically been down all day, should that affect the overall score of the game?
Half-Lfe 2 had its own similar problems with activation with the burgeoning Steam platform being overloaded with activations and downloading of the Half-Life 2 game. I bought a DVD copy of the game the day it came out, installed the game, but when I tired to activate it, it basically Error37'd me for like 48 hours before I could finally go through the 3 second activation process and play the game.
I am basically now sick of these companies pulling this crap. Sure, I get it, everyone who is potentionally buying your game is going to try and get on in a very short window and its unfair to the company. But if you are offering a product for sale which I am buying for $60, I expect it to work, no and-ifs-or-buts about it. Did Diablo III need an always online single-player? No, not at all, and I feel the review scores should fully reflect that if a company tries to push a terrible policy and then fail, they should be fully judged the second that game is released at this point.
On the other hand, I had no problem with the day-one patch of Battlefield 1942 10 years ago at this point, nor it being pretty broken at times, but that was 10 years ago when that type of game was totally revolutionary, the company didn't have any intentions of malice with the games release or trying to push their terrible agenda of policies, and at that point, there were not 10 years of games that released broken and developers thinking that is fine to treat consumers like that (skyrim for the PS3, I am looking directly at you).
In conclusion, Diablo III - 0/10, and at this point, I find it crazy that reviewers still deal with this.