....

It isn't. 

You've said it yourself: You're NOT playing the game. How do you expect to like something you don't play?

You're entire point in the thread was that it was "too big" for you, but a lot of the extra content are things that have nothing to do with pro play. 

What does a higher amount of characters even have to do with the pros? Smash's selling point has been an increased roster size since Melee. 

The only thing that wasn't "casual" friendly was some of the challenger approaches, which have just been patched yesterday. That doesn't even really pertain to your topic, since it's about how "complex" it is because of the roster and size of the game, which again has nothing to do with the pros.

It's not like you're looking into competitive play or fighting level 9 CPUs. At the level you're playing at, the game is just as complex as pretty much any Smash game except maybe the original. 

But when it comes  to DLC, Sakurai is adamant on creating extra content from scratch and after the game is COMPLETE. He prefers to release a complete game rather than release an incomplete game that will slowly get content over time. THAT'S not his style. And to him, the launch roster that he laid out in Dec. 2015, the 103 stages, the multitude of songs, the battle modes, the World of Light, are what makes Smash Bros. Ultimate a complete game.

And as for being inviting to casuals, I think it all depends on perspective. I have a friend who just got Smash Bros. and only played the original N64 game prior to Ultimate. She was initially overwhelmed but slowly got the hang of things and was having fun. Of course, its anecdotal but it shows that Ultimate isn't completely uninviting. I mean, the game has the potential to sell over 10+ million copies. Thus, how much of that 10+ million do you think would be casuals?

What are you playing where you magically need to be amazing at characters in order to just enjoy the game casually? World of Light may be a bit challenging at times but pretty much every single-player or casual smash mode is just as complex as the past games, which is to say not very complex at all (again, casually). 

Not trying to be a dick, I just don't get your point, especially now that challenger approaches have been patched (although that's a double-edged sword since you want less characters). 

No

Absolutely NOT. Remember SFV?

A game should be FULL at release, and DLC should be nothing more than extra stuff. I am glad Smash gave us everything up front.

Ok, give me all content on the cart.  Releasing things incomplete and updating overtime has never/will never/is not the best method IMO.  Any DLC, free or paid, should be EXTRA content.

Smash Ultimate was advertised as an Ultimate Smash with all previous characters returning, so they did the right and best thing by giving us all content on the cart.

NOOOOO, PLEASE NO! This has been one of the worst business practices this generation preformed by gaming companies.

Sorry that you think the current Smash DLC plan is over-expensive and exploitative. I just find it hard to understand it somewhat since its $6 for a character, a stage, and some music tracks. Music tracks individually tend to be like about $0.99 or something like that on iTunes. If there are like 5-10 tracks, that's already close, if not greater than the $6 price tag. Then you got the stage and character being made from scratch. That's still money and resources to being utilized. Of course, you could say the same for the extra content Splatoon and ARMS had, but their initial launches were way different compared to Ultimate. Plus, this is all-new content being developed AFTER the game went gold. There are no echo fighters or returning veterans to be considered for the upcoming Smash Bros. DLC. What makes Joker, the first challenger pack, and his stage and music over-expensive and exploitative?

And as for the Splatoon/ARMS/Mario Tennis Aces model, it all depends. You say Sakurai should adapt, but then others will criticize this particular format. The controversy surrounding the game will likely not bode well, especially when you're talking about an established franchise that has been all about an increasing all-star cast. ARMS and Splatoon were new IPs at the time (and even Splatoon 2 had criticisms when it launched the same way the original did) while Mario Tennis Aces was a sequel to Ultra Smash, which was pretty much a laughing stock for having nothing else but quick play matches and random online matches. Smash Bros. is a critically acclaimed franchise with each iteration is expected to be bigger than the last.

Whether you can change the way it can be marketed or not, having the title "Ultimate" but starting with a 20-man roster with more coming in late summer or fall may not necessarily go the way you wanted. I don't know if Smash Ultimate would have had the incredible first week it has now if it started off with the model you suggested. Who knows, because its Smash, the game would still do well in the Summer, but Nintendo wanted the game to help kickstart the holiday rush or Switch in December while Pokemon carried the load in November.

That still does not give me all of the content on the cart I payed 60 dollars for.  Your argument is invalid to my point.

That's the thing too. Smash Bros. is supposed to be a big AAA Nintendo game. People have criticized Splatoon and ARMS launching at $60 so it would be hard to imagine Smash Bros. either releasing at a lower price or getting away from the same criticisms just because its Smash Bros.