Also as usual people use extreme cases to defend minmaxing. Is a Str 14 barbarian inept? No, but minmaxer want you to think so.
True, a 14 Str Barbarian is not inept per se, but have you tried playing one throughout the entire length of a campaign while there is a 16 Str Fighter in the same group? It's not fun. Starting on fair footing compared to other players is not min-maxing. It'd be far less of a problem if your low Str could be compensated for by other stats, but with the way DnD5e is designed there is always one ability your class relies on significantly more than others.
5e is fundamentally designed around the assumption that you start with at least a 16 in your primary ability. All origin companions available in the EA reflect this. It has nothing to do with min-maxing.
While not a barbarian I currently play a very suboptimal character in a Starfinder campaign. Why? Because the story is great (and the less than powerful combat abilities are part of the story). Good RPGs can handle that pretty well. See the old Fallouts for example. Sadly there are people who think only combat matters and WotC and now Larian have been indulging them by for example the ASI change, signaling that yes, having a combat optimized character is the most important thing in D&D. Hence D&D is turned back into a wargame.
I dont see what the asi change has to do with running a suboptimal characters, you can still do that with the asi change. But yeah most people in games about being a hero want to be a hero.
