Thats not really how things tend to work. First of all, if they launched with everything, the community would be really spread out, which could lead to long wait times for matches and all the problems that come with a smaller community. Second of all, there is no guarantee that this will hold players for a long time. In my experience, players tend to find the mode they like and then exclusively play this one mode until they are bored with the game.

This model manages to avoid both of those problems, by first of all keeping the community focused before switching that focus to new modes when they release. Second of all, due to the staggered mode releases, players will be encouraged to play every mode significantly instead of just picking one mode, which could increase the overall play time

As for your F2P game comment, if this were a F2P game, all of the post launch content would be charged content instead of free content, so that is a bit of a moot point.

Me not buying the game at launch makes no difference to my argument. "You don't have to buy it" or "it's just an option" doesn't shift the fact that they're selling an anemic and incomplete game at launch. If the game doesn't have a good review launch, it'll have no legs. If it gets bombed at launch for having no content, where will the legs come from exactly? Will review sites update their reviews every time free content comes out? Of course not, because not one will care by that point.

This game is going to sell well enough at launch and fall straight off right after once word gets out that it's a shell with nothing in it. Like Titanfall, people won't line up in droves once the content finally is up to snuff.

The game deserves even more of a shit storm than it's getting, and I called that months ago.

The problem with Nintendo fans, is they are really stuck to past ways of gaming, and it isn't working for Nintendo. Ya Nintendo is being profitable, but they need to turn it all around. They could easily be the biggest gaming company.

Hence why I love my concept of this being PC game, priced at 30 (TF2 was after a year launched seperately for $20, but that was MP only). The thing is Nintendo would never approach the method of drops and marketplace for gear, because the fans would moan about that. So we will never get this game to be 30, because no way could Nintendo benefit from the inventory market. 

Given I am being harsh on Nintendo fans, it is really just couple of vocal ones in this thread. 

If this was a third party game a lot more people would complain I think. Come'on guys, you can't seriously be happy with 5 multiplayer maps at launch and 2 multiplayer modes... 28 short levels of singleplayer as well. That's not good.

I don't care if the dlc is free, I rather have the game delayed then to see it launch like this. This will hurt the game's sales and critical reception.

$60 for what looks like a $20 game at best.

Amiibo is the most offensive DLC ever?  Now that's comedy on the cusp of parody.  There's exactly one game with meaningful content tied to Amiibo and that's MP10 and lo and behold if is priced with that in mind, with $59.99 including an Amiibo.  As for this being a F2P model, uh, no.  F2P is dependent on micro transactions and IAP.  This has none of those so far.  This is just the same model from Team Fortress 2.  Now whether you LIKE that or not is your own business, but this is a model that has been used before to great success; your vitriolic wailing is just plain hyperbolic.  And the content they showed is launching this summer anyway.  By August the game will have at least 15 maps, 3 ranked modes, more weapons, etc. plus enhanced matchmaking and so on.  Yes, this is a strategy to extend the legs and launch impact.  And I personally take no issue with that so long as the content hits fast.  If they said throughout the rest of the YEAR, then I would be much more upset.  

I disagree with the point that this is a bad strategy on principle.

As for how it will affect sales and reviews, I don't really know. We will see, however, I feel that this is a strategy that has the potential to be good for everybody, including those who buy the game on launch day

Silly Mario Kart, it should have launched with 5 race tracks!

Exactly how will the community get split off by adding more maps at launch? I can somewhat understand the multiplayer modes (although I still think it's not a good idea), but maps?

Mario Kart isn't really comparable to Splatoon due to the different ways they handle modes as well as the different sales potentials of the two games.

As for why they split off the maps, they kinda explained it in the direct. The new maps will be releasing throughout the summer (not just in august) and they are more technical maps. They want the playerbase to accumulate some degree of skill before asking more from them with maps facilitating more skilled players, similar to how they are handling ranked mode. Additionally, this is a way of extending longevity.

Maybe, maybe not.  Some might change their tune, but people familiar with this launch model (PC players) probably wouldn't.  I mean, it works if done right.  And the first wave of updates is planned for the summer, so it isn't a terribly long wait.  

Also, charging $60 at launch is what allows for the free content later.  It's an investment in a platform, that's the whole point of the model.  

Now if you personally don't like the model, that's your own business.  But the way the model is set up, there's no real loss of value just a faster gratification for those who want it.

So now Nintendo thinks we're complete idiots incapable of playing such a "sophisticated" game?

Did Super Mario 3D World cut the bonus worlds at launch just to release them at a later date? You know, it might be too hard for us "dumb" gamers...

Did DKC: TF release the K-levels and the bonus world at a later date because it demanded more skilled players? No!

These games let you earn those harder, more technical levels by showing skill.