Essentially. 

Yes, it's usually about the platform and some games get it worse for various reason on all sides. 

I think this game will be one of those.

It seems like it even stretches to marketing deals also on some games which is far stranger to me.  

GameSpot

"Even a few hours in, however, there comes a point where the loop of seeking and acquiring gear begins to sag, and the vastness of the galaxy sinks in. With an unfathomable universe beckoning, and hundreds of thousands of light years separating you from the intended finish line at the center of the galaxy, it becomes far too easy to question the meaning of your pursuits. No Man's Sky is an impressive technical feat, but its enormity may come at a cost. What does it mean to be alive in a world where everything is driven by algorithms, and your existence is solitary?"

IGN

"This is an enormously complex game, but it gets there by means of networking together many different mundane tasks. So far that’s been as amusing as it generally is in the genre of survival crafting games, but at this point No Man’s Sky has done little to set itself apart other than the impressive spectacle of flying from one impractically huge world to another without obvious loading screens between them."

USGamers

"The lack of emphasis on combat has led some to ask what exactly you're supposed to be doing in No Man's Sky outside of collecting resources. The answer, I suppose, is to find out what is at the end of the proverbial rainbow."

Polygon:

"I would love the opportunity to just explore these places, jump between them at will, explore the galaxy and see what awaits me without the constant pressure to collect a bunch of crafting materials just to survive."

Are you sure all those userscore reviews comes from haters? Some pretty important webs are saying similar things, it looks like the game has all the problems I thought it would, and since so many people was expecting some kind of game changing hit it wouldn't surprise me if that big disappointment has been translated into a lot of 0, people constantly overreact on the internet after all.

If is all because haters are hating an exclusive... can anybody explain me why Bloodborne and Uncharted 4 user scores were always high and green since the very first day?

Like I said in another comment, fanboys giving the game an automatic 10/10 because it's an established franchise from an established developer and because they're a fanboy of the platform the game is exclusive to. It goes both ways.

Haha metacritic user scores are a guilty pleasure of mine to read lol. I actually hope they don't get shut down because they're too damn funny.

It's not exclusive.

Whenever reviews disagree with you, it's clearly a conspiracy, bias, north korea hacking the site, or something like that.  It's impossible that people legitimately have different opinions.  

I'll assume just like Amazon's reviews, mostly trolls. Nine 1 star reviews, two  2 star reviews, and not one a verified purchase.

BUt it's on PC, it's not even platform exclusive. If we want to limit it to being "console exclusive" then of course that logical answer leads us directly towards pointing the finger at Xbox and Nintendo fans, we all know how that battle ends.

Let's take my current fave space/planet exploration game being Starbound, that got 84 Metascore and 6.7 userscore. For the time being it's PC exclusive but it's coming out for PS4/X1 (possibly even Vita) and no one is ragging on that game for it's current exclusivity and not many outisde the game know that it's only exclusive for a limited time (I see plenty of folk over the last 2 years asking if it would pop on current gen systems from time to time via forums and YT). The difference with that game is it had no big budget marketing, no big interviews or anything fancy, just a booth once or twice, some trailers on Youtube and then it's final release.

See NMS just like other games have their faults, every game has it's positives and negatives, no game is practically perfect, I honestly don't know why anyone would think NMS to be perfect or above the rest. Minecraft got praised a lot, it also got it's fair share of "hate", it scored decently but it too has it's faults and it's positive aspects. Either way the game is going to be judged as it is, not what it's been hyped up to be. It's not one of those super extreme niche games where only 5 people on this rock "get it" in the "right" way that makes it so amazing that no one can ever deny it. If reviewers and users score it as such and the score doesn't change drastically within the first or second month then it is what it is. Some people may even change their score but at this moment this is how it's going and it's not stemming directly from just two console camps. without direct and quantifiable proof it basically becomes tin foil hat territory.

Besides going by what reviewers are saying, it's not the worst game of the year, nowhere near. Also we shouldn't be basing user reviews from a site like Metacritic, we should instead be watching the actual proper reviews from legit reviewers instead.