It's a ripoff, period. (For more detail in this thought check Kasz216 post)

But I like it, probably won't buy it, but next time I say "I like playing SSB", I won't feel that ashamed. You know, because of the hardcore gamerzzzz.

I said most successful.  I think sales is the best indicator of success.  And I didn't pick a random entry of each franchise, I picked the most recent version of each.  But if we must...

Adding all of the entries in the Street Fighter franchise together, we get just about 30 million (feel free to do the math yourself).  The 3 games in the Smash Bros franchise have... 23.75 million.  So Street Fighter is ahead by 6.25 million. For reference, Capcom's official tally for the series was 28 million as of October 2012.

Not so impressive when you consider that the first Street Fighter game came out in 1987.  Smash came out 12 years later in 99.

What happens when you compare the two franchises since 1999?  Well... Smash naturally stays at 23.75.  As for Street Fighter...

All of the SF games released since 1999 add up to 10.71 million units.

So, Smash Brothers Brawl, on its own, has outsold every single Street Fighter game made since 1999.  Even if you want to add in Capcom vs SNK and Marvel vs Capcom 3, you'll only get to about 15 million, which is still well short of Smash's total.  And what do you suppose will happen when Smash comes out for the Wii U and 3DS?  There is no doubt that those two games will easily make up the 6 million unit gap that seperates them.

So, no, Street Fighter is not more successful, unless you take a time machine and go back to the time to the 90's.

Edit:  And no, I'm not going to go track down sales figures for manga or see how much money they made or lost on the Street Fighter movie.  I think I've backed up my stance with hard numbers.  If you'd like to, feel free to do some research and back up your position.  Or, you could just sit their and say "nuh uh Street Fighter is better", but I'm not going to waste anymore time than I have to argue with someone making no effort to back up what they say.

From what ive seen, it looks like they took some of the best elements of smash bros (the whole falling off of the stages kills you thing) and replaced it with...well make your own opinion on the "you can only kill with super moves" thing but i dont like it. I'd say rip off, not because of what it is but how it becomes what it is.

I'm a Nintendo fan and a Smash Bros. fan and I think it's a rip-off - and I like that. Because Smash Bros is a blast to play, ripping off such cool concept is a great idea to create another great game. This could be another game, that is interesting on Vita and can lead in the long to me buying this machine.

Surely, Sony could both it by trying to be different about it and throw away some of the concepts that make Smash so great. But if I read the article someone posted, that tries to point out differences, I see it uses many things from Smash. Look, the Power orb you get for powerful attacks 'Super'. That sounds like the special attacks you get by destroying a smash ball.

I'm pretty hopeful, that this can be a good ripoff and therefore a good game.

I don't recall ever saying anything like "nuh uh Street Fighter is better" so please don't insult me. If laughing at your belief that Smash is more successful was insult to you that was not what I was going for. Your view of success is clearly different from mine. Street fighter has done more for fighting games than pretty much any fighting game to date. I view success by influence on the market and longevity. There is one thing that the biggest factor in why smash out sales fighting games and I'm sure you know it. Smash is a party game designed with simple controls to be accessible to a larger audience. You are right though I'm not going to fight you in a number game when I don't feel numbers paint the entire picture of what other games have done that make them a more successful franchise.

My bad if I was a bit over sensitive.  If you want to talk about influence (within the fighting game franchise), of course Street Fighter is bigger than Smash.  But, when I look at success, I'm viewing it the same way that I'm sure Capcom, Sony, and Nintendo view it.  Dollars and cents. 

• Of course this games idea and budget are the direct result of the success of Super Smash Bros and years of Sony fans asking for an equivalent
• Being an equivalent offering finally presented and comparable to Super Smash Bros, of course stupid people will focus on rip-off or other such dismissive attitudes
• After the very first First Person Shooter, everything that follows in that genre is a rip-off of an original idea and execution that worked
• After the very first Mascot Platformer game, everything that follows in that genre is a rip-off of an original idea and execution that worked
• After the very first Motion control game, everything that follows in that control space is a rip-off of an original idea and execution that worked

This debate is pointless. Nobody wants a gaming world with just as many game franchises repeating themselves as their are unique game genre or ideas.

Either get the game and enjoy it or don't. Who cares what game before it was the original idea that executed really really well to create this new genre.

So... Metroid Prime is a rip of of Doom?  Sonic is a rip off of Mario?  Dance Central is a rip off of Wii Sports?

Nope.  There is room to innovate and improve even within the confines of a genre.

I see what you are saying about how the companies see it being only about dollars. Do you really feel like Capcom isn't getting more out of the SF series than nintendo with Smash? I can't see smash becoming anything more that what it is.

It depends.  If you look at it over a lifetime, Capcom's obviously milked a lot out of the franchise between Darkstalkers, Capcom vs SNK, Marvel vs Capcom, etc.  That being said,  I think the franchise has kind of plateud.  The traditional 2-D fighting genre as a whole has been dead for years.  Street Fighter IV gave it a reasonable boost, but even so, traditional 2-D fighting is sort of a niche genre at this point.  For all its success, Street Fighter IV has generated about 5 million in sales, which is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things.  Even if you through Marvel vs Capcom, and Street Fighter x Tekken to that, you're only around 8 million, and that's 3 seperate games with three seperate development budgets, not to mention the costs of ports.

Smash in comparison is not going to branch out much, but because of it's party game nature, it reaches a broader fanbase than Street Fighter ever did or ever will.  Smash appeals to the competitive community as well as the more lucritive casual community and everyone in between.  I'm sure you've heard tons of people say that they bought a console just for Smash (I think a few people said it just in this topic).  Few people are buying consoles just to play Street Fighter (although they did back in the SNES days).  I think Smash Brothers is a franchise that will probably be able to sell between 7-12 million per console its released on for the forseeable future.

So, let's say right now, for some unknown reason, someone said "We'll either give you 50% of the profits of the Smash Brothers franchise or 50% of the future profits of the Street Fighter franchise and all its spin offs"... I'd definitely go with Smash.

To put it another way, there's definitely a reason that Sony decided to base their game off of Smash Brothers instead of something like Marvel vs Capcom 3.