I agree they could have handled the last second BIOS updates better, and they probably needed to delay the launch. However, if they had delayed the launch, every message board out there would be filled with outrage, and it would have disrupted too many partners/customers. So they really had no choice but to go with the date they gave. It was really a no win situation.
As far as performance goes, this is where I stand on it. I have seen so many posts where people talk about the CPU as it's not good for gaming. However, when I look at the various reviews, I do see it trailing Intel's top CPUs. Although the difference is not that large for most of the games. For a brand new launch I think that is pretty good, but I would never personally pre-order a component based on hype. I want to see actual reviews from reputable sites first, and those don't come from WCCF and random YouTube people. There's some issues/concerns they need to fix, and there will be many BIOS, Windows, and software updates on the way. It will be interesting to see how things progress over the next several weeks. I still wouldn't recommend it for people who wouldn't be willing to deal with some of the early "headaches", as all new platforms feature many BIOS/driver/OS updates.
I guess when I read a while back that AMD was releasing a new CPU, I would read the various updates about its design and progress, but I never commented in any thread about it. I am the furthest from a "fanboy" as they come. I would just wait until it was launched and reviewed before making any decisions about it. However, you have had a lot of people on many tech sites that have been doing the back-and-forth that goes on with any "big" release. Ryzen had been debated every which way for over a year, and by the time the launch date got closer, the anticipation was sky-high. Even on sites like Slickdeals, if someone posted a deal on an Intel CPU over the last couple of months, the thread would quickly turn into the "If you buy an Intel CPU with Ryzen coming out soon, you're an idiot!" and "Ryzen will destroy every Intel CPU out there!" debates. So I think the hype was definitely there, I just think it created and debated by enthusiasts.
In my opinion, Ryzen is a good CPU for gaming, productivity, and general usage. If you are a benchmarker or big overclocker, then I'd say that Ryzen as it stands today isn't for that person. The platform is still very young, and there will be growing pains. It's in no way a "slam-dunk" choice when compared to what Intel offers, but it will all come down to pricing/promotions. If AMD's upcoming midrange CPUs are competitive, a person who is building a PC should at least compare their options and make an educated purchase. Sometimes that choice will be Intel, and sometimes it will be AMD. I honestly could care less what company's CPU is in my system. I've used both of them over the years. I just want the best 'bang-for-the buck' product at the time I make my purchase, and I want it to take care of my needs for at least 3-5 years. There really to be a healthy competition between Intel and AMD, with each controlling as close as possible to 50% of the desktop market, because that is the only way consumers win. Intel not too long ago controlled almost 88% of the x86 CPU market, and that's not good for anyone outside of Intel and their investors.
That's just my .02