So only paywalls make for poor practice? There are plenty of games I love that have features or aspects I find annoying, one doesn't have to defend everything even in one's favorite titles. Do you honestly don't see how many could be upset about the way it has been handled and these limitations being imposed?
There are literally zero arguments for not being able to choose modes and maps, an update in August? Really? Why can't people choose now? Is this "keeping it fresh" tactic over by then?
You don't keep online communities active and healthy by saying that it will be great in a few months, this site in and on itself is a very recent and very relevant example (vis-a vis the missing figures this year).
Seriously; this is ridiculous by almost every measure.

I strongly disagree that paywalls are required for something to be unfair or poor practice, I'm sure that when micro-transaction bonanza arrives on mobile through Nintendo, you'll be the first one to openly condemn it then.

While more could mos definately done, matchmaking would take far too long if all current requests are filled, as the number of players just isn't large enough yet. (regional matchmaking, all maps available at all time, all modes available at all time, modes available for both ranked and non-ranked, etc...) This is very likely the justification for these contreversial decisions.

We apologize, but we know what is best for you, as a consumer. Please understand.

I´m not deffending that shitty decision, I just can´t stand that people compares a bad decision with the constant abusive business practices of EA and I can´t stand people that talks like this is breaking the game or something, spoiler: Is still as good as ever and it will get even better.

deducting points for something that wasnt there is stupid.

games should be rated or scored by reveiwers base on what was released and reviewed by them not base on some future shyet. if the game is shyet day one then it should be reviewed as shyet. if the game is fun and great day one, then it should be reflected on the review. if the game is fun but missing some stuff which the developer promised will come sometime in the future, then the game should be reviewed as is and whats current on it and no points should be deducted coz the added content aint there yet.

as for splatoon being underated, well, it isnt the reviewers fault. blame that on nintendo for rushing it out and delivering a halfbaked, but according to most, fun game. much like how i believe that drive club deservies its crappy review even though it is a billion times better now than release. 

I wasn´t discussing that.

But to say that the game would have scored worse now, that is pure bullshit.

I think the game is underrated as far as the quality and polish of the game is concerned. I accept that it is probably fairly rated given the content available at launch but if the completed game was available at that time I believe it would have gotten higher scores.

this is stupid of Nintendo to do! I complained on miiverse which is what everybody ells should do as well

This is a good decision by Nintendo I think. They obviously were afraid of having a situation like in Black Ops 2 where you have entire modes/maps completely empty online. Perhaps if the user base gets significantly larger they'll open it up a bit, but for now I think it makes sense that they'd opt for a curated approach.

It isn't and even if they didn't lower the score because of it, they would have at the very least mentioned it and you know, maybe some people would have been very much less interested in buying a game that tries bullshit like this. Simple fact, Nintendo not releasing the game finished has kept a feature that for all intents and purposes is shitty away from reviewers and people that bought the game at launch.