People are still adjusting to that last update … I still occasionally hear complaints about the chess clock … it’s only been around since 1892 or so, chess players need time to adjust.
It’s in development.
This thread is outside my wheelhouse, but can someone satisfy my curiosity: What is “AAA gaming”?
I’m assuming from the context you’re not talking about just-below-major-league baseball nor electronic games that take a certain size battery.
Games with large budgets from big studios. Basically the vidoegame equivalent of a “blockbuster” in film.
No offense man, but it took you 'till 2016 to learn to be wary of AAA titles at launch?
The negative reviews for this game were coming in hot and heavy right after it came out. The dang thing is sitting at a 2.5 user rating on Metacritic for the PC version.
It’s good that you came around; the big companies should not be rewarded for lazy game design by putting out inferior products at launch. But they’ve been doing it for an awfully long time now.
I think the lesson is really just being careful in general about game purchases rather than assuming that AAA games are better/worse than indie titles. It should go without saying that there are a LOT of terrible indie games – I’d guess that the ratio is worse than for big budget games since the AAA guys have teams trying to recoup their costs. Of course, getting burned for $15 isn’t as bad as getting burned for $60.
Dragon Age: Inquisition, Dragon’s Dogma, Mad Max and Fallout 4 were all 75+ hr fun for me in the last year or so and all from major studios. I haven’t gotten into Just Cause 3 or Rise of the Tomb Raider yet but both seem to be well received from people I spoke to. That’s not a defense of “AAA games” in general but I don’t think I’d want to write them off either. There’s a lot of fun stuff all over the spectrum.
There’s got to be some way to encourage them to adjust more quickly…
Yeah, I don’t really know what to say about this. You shouldn’t be buying games (AAA or otherwise, generally, IMHO) at launch at this point unless they are from a studio that you trust inside out and backwards, and even then, you should burn that bridge after a maximum of three strikes. I’m not saying don’t buy the games. I’m saying don’t act as a paying beta tester by buying whatever they shovel out in time for an arbitrary release date. Be an informed consumer.
I don’t even think being a competitive gamer is an excuse here. For any competitive game that is going to have a meaningful lifespan (and any competitive game that doesn’t isn’t worth buying at all) being behind by a couple of months means bupkus. Sure, you’ll lose alot when you first get it, but so what? If you’re serious about playing it competitively, you’ll level up and being competing with the big boys long before the game’s lifecycle ends, and if you’re not serious about playing it competitively, what do you care?
Three other things you need to be wary of in the modern market:
First, Early Access. There are valid, worthwhile Early Access titles. There’s also stuff where the creators just threw a half-baked beta test into the public space. Look very carefully before you buy.
Second, .watch out for titles stuffed with DLC. In my view, this is a cheap trick to inflate the price of games while not openly acknowledging it. Too many companies would really like to charge a couple hundred bucks for mediocre titles, especially in the AAA space. (I’m honestly waiting for the day when they start charging $300 for no actual released game.) The way they do this is to release a full-price title, and then stuff it full of of weak dlc. Whenever I see dlc announced before the game launches, I back away. At this point, you might then point out that virtually all the AAA titles do just that. To which I would agree, and suggest that these titles deserve extra scrutiny.
It goes without saying that you should never buy Season Passes. This is never a deal for you, the consumer and player. The sole reason for Season Passes is get more of your money as fast as possible. At best, you’re getting maybe a $5 discount, but only off arbitrary pricing they already put into place. That pricing exists only to make you buy the Season Pass. Additionally, it may end up being a really terrible investment, or the company may deceive you about what will actually end up being done with it. Once they get you money, you have just given away any leverage you have over the developers and producers.
The solution is pretty straightforward: don’t buy games until you’re confident they’re worth it. Just because everyone else is chasing the hype dragon doesn’t mean you have to.
I do think the growing popularity of exclusive preorder bonuses is a little scummy, though. It preys on the completionist impulse of many people and forces them choose between having a “complete” experience or making an informed decision.
I’m wary of digital bonuses for pre-orders ever since that +5 sling in Baldur’s Gate 2 that turned out to be available to anyone who downloaded the tiny file that came on the bonus disc. That at least was the best item of its type you were going to get in the game, though you did have to actually pay for it in-game. But generally these are balanced items that you may use a little if at all, especially if like with Mass Effect, they can’t be used without having the helmet show up in cutscenes.
Early access, beta access? Just finish the damned game and let me know.
Generally, I think of myself as above the whole AAA thing, which is of course total bullshit. I just happen to buy AAA titles in a very specific genre, and most of the talk about AAA is about games I can’t imagine wanting to play. But I bought Fallout 4 the day it came on sale, and I have plenty of complaints, but I don’t regret buying it. I’ll probably buy Mass Effect: Andromeda, you know, real soon after the option becomes available. And I probably won’t regret it. Generally, I don’t often feel bit in the ass buying my favorite types of games when they first become available. I mean, there was Dragon Age 2 and South Park, both of which I enjoyed but seemed more like games I’d recommend paying $20-30 bucks for. From there I have to go as far back as Lands of Lore 3 and Pools of Radiance 2 to point out games were I really felt I got screwed because I bought them brand new.
Fallout 4 and XCOM 2 were decent to good on launch day, IMO.
I heard Batman: Arkham Knight had problems running on the PC. And, as the OP discovered, Street Fighter 5 appears incomplete (if functional for what is in there).
Unfortunately, it’s still a little bit of a “hit and/or miss” situation out there. “Pre-orders” and “early access” do not guarantee quality, either. 
The problems with AAA titles are interesting. It’s definitely a “mo’ money, mo’ problems” thing. Because the budgets are so large and SO many people are involved, the release schedules are rushed, teams are shifted too frequently between projects, and bad money-chasing ideas are implemented way too frequently.
I know folks who’ve worked on these games, and it’s really a fascinating industry. Because games are essentially the most expensive per “unit” type of pop culture entertainment, the need to get people to “buy in” early is heightened and causes complications.
I don’t buy AAA titles at launch at all, anymore. Pretty much every game will get at least a 20% discount within a few months, and I have enough backlog not to worry about a delay.
Episodic / piecemeal games seem like one possible solution. SFV’s launch has been a mess of complaints, but Killer Instinct on Xbox has been a big fan favorite because they’ve rolled it out in pieces, let people pay at different tiers and know what they’re getting, and kept communication pretty open and honest.
Aside from all the bugs with performance in XCOM 2? I mean I don’t even follow the game and I heard about that.
There’s never really anything to lose by waiting.
It’s you, you are the reason.
I can only speak to my experiences. I didn’t have very many issues with my video. (A little video stuttering during the non-interactive portion of the drop ship brief/debrief scenery.)
I saw youtube clips that showed some entertaining clipping issues that had no affect on gameplay, and a couple cases of poor automatic camera positioning (which definitely would be frustrating, I agree). However, the underlying game engine always worked fine (for me). That’s comparatively “decent”, IMO.
Batman: Arkham Knight had game breaking lag and performance issues, and (IIRC) the PC version had to be pulled from Steam. That’s beyond “not decent”, more like “disastrous”.
The OP is noticing the lack of content in SF-5, compared to what he expected (and what the players got in previous releases in that franchise). This “rush it out the door” phenomena is not new, sad to say, but it may be new to the OP.
I’m just nodding along in sympathy with him/her.
I had very few issues with Xcom 2, certainly nothing that would stop me from calling it a great game and money well spent.
I don’t think it’s always and categorically a bad idea to buy a game at launch, but I you’ve got to do it deliberately and with plenty of due diligence. There are good reasons to get in on day one for a lot of games, but that’s a metaphorical day one, not a literal one.
In this case, waiting 'till literal day three or four would have made it clear that buying it was a pretty bad decision.
That’s nice; I mean, just because you didn’t have issues didn’t mean that lots of people didn’t. It sortof mystifies me that people are saying “But it works for me!” as if that’s some sort of argument here. Just because a game doesn’t have performance issues for EVERYONE doesn’t mean it’s a solid release. 
I mean, if you want to take it from that perspective, I would be PERFECTLY FINE with SFV, because I don’t give a crap about story mode in my fighting games. Does that mean it’s now not an incomplete release? C’mon guys. =/
Here, have some journalism on Xcom 2.
To be completely fair, a lot of indie games are crap, too. Probably a higher proportion than AAA games, in fact. It’s just that nobody ever hears or cares about a crap indie game.