My biggest gripe with the game is how they obviously put a lot of effort into the universe and environments, and then went on to make a game in which you spend 90% of the time shooting at things. That last "boss" battle was total horseshit and managed to completely slow the game to a crawl in its last 15 minutes. It was ridiculous.

Generally considered disappointing? What are you on about? By who?

The games did incredibly well review-wise and sold a ton of copies. Aside from the usual crybabies on message boards such as this one, people like both games a lot.

Nice.

"Boohoo we need more mediocre games!"

Get a grip.

Really sad if they succeed. Ubisoft have been making some excellent games these last few years.

Pretty much this. The singleplayer is as amazing as ever but last I checked (a few months ago) they still hadn't fixed the terrible online lobbies and broken match making. Adding a bunch of shirts and cars I can't afford every month is fine and all, but when the core game is so cumbersome I simply can't be bothered sticking around.

Guy's running out of material.

Rainbow Six Siege wasn't missing any features at launch and launched with a good selection of maps and modes. Furthermore, all future content, such as operators and maps, are completely free of charge. The servers had some problems at launch, sure, but calling it an early access game is stupid as ****.

Battlefront neither launched with any lacking features. Some people might've WANTED bot matches, more maps, or whatever. But people wanting something the game never promised is does not make it incomplete or "early access". Battlefront has too received great post-launch support with a good amount of free content, so yeah... another crap example.

Neither of these games are mission any major features that's to be expected of the kind of games they are. You may not agree with the amount of content, but the game itself, the full experience, is there in both cases. Street Fighter V is an entirely opposite story, given that the game is lacking content you'd very much expect to be there in a fighting game of its type. Now, whether or not this has been made clear before its release I honestly don't know, given that I have zero interest in the game to begin with. Still, picking good example out of three for a video like this hardly helps him get his point across.

The guy feeling that the games are lacking in content does turn them into early access games. The developers for both games were VERY clear about what these games would offer at launch. And they've delivered on said promises. Fallout 4 was severely lacking in RPG elements according to many, with 60 dollars worth of DLC on its way. What if one of these DLCs add to the RPG elements of the game; will that render Fallout 4 an incomplete game? And did the developers of said game even promise us said RPG elements in the first place, based on pre-release material? I'm not entirely sure.

Again, he seems to be running out of stuff to talk about, resulting in him getting stuck in some kind of "man, aren't big developers/publishers just horrible evil people"-rut. It's getting a bit sad.

Well, Black Ops 3 is a complete game after all.

Counting on both being fantastic.