I get where your coming from, but the main diference here from Call of duty, destiny, battlefield and so on, is that nintendo is telling us what the content is, when is coming, why is happening AND the best thing is, its all FREE. WHere you to tel me that all that added content would have been payed dlc, then the world deserves to burn nintendo down and hold hands, when you compare it to destiny where the $15(I think) expansion was like 10 mins of content that can be replayed over and over and we had no idea what it was untill release, nintendo is doing it way better.

Edit: Also forgot to mention, nobody knows how long and good the single player story is. Coming from nintendo, it could have great replay value and be decent lenth even if the focus they are selling it with is mutyplayer.

The Order had crappy value but let's not exagerate the reality just to make a point, eh?

http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=20067

He said 4 hour campaign with 2 hours of cutscenes = 6 hours. Cutscenes are not the reason I buy a game.

That's not even slightly close to true.

Oh?  To me that read as a 4 hour campaign including 2 hours of cutscenes.  To my knowledge that is usually how parentheses after a statement such as that are defined.  If what you are saying is the case then it would be close enough to accurate to not be an exagerration.  

I'm sure they're not why you buy a game, a common stance amongst nintendo fans.  

The game is predominantly online multiplayer, and since the updates will be free of charge, I don't see a problem at all.
Games like Battlefield or CoD ship in similar conditions, and then charge $50 for "premium" maps.
I see this also as a move to keep players interested and returning regularly to try out new maps and stuff.

I personally have no interest in this game, as it's a blend of two things I dislike the most: cartoony graphics and online shooting, but I do hope it does really well, it looks very much fun.

From what I played, it didn't really feel yet like there are only 5 maps. Even just having 2 maps at a time during the Demo was something you didn't really feel because the map changes so much with the splattering.

@Spemanig: Did Evolve got crucified? If you want to compare Splatoon to any other game content-wise, that's probably the best one to do so as they have similarities on many levels. The main difference in the content philosophy is that in Evolve you have to pay for additional content while you get it for free at Splatoon. Evolve got criticized for it's moneygrabbing, but most reviews liked the gameplay and very few had anything to even say about the basic content - which means no bad thing to say about it. Since here the additional content comes for free, I don't think reviews or reception will be bad, as the things which went bad on Evolve are not present in Splatoon.

Honestly I feel like they are rushing to release the game just to fill the earlier months.
Yes I know Yoshi and Kirby are/come out (depending on where you live which is really weird in itself), but to have all this content post launch and not include it on release is incredibly stupid.

I guess thats why the game is only like 2 gbs.

If Splatoon was being advertized as a singleplayer game with tacked on multiplayer, maybe I'd see where you're coming from, but it isn't. It's being advertized as a game you play for the multiplayer. I'll say it as many times as I have to - Splatoon should have been free to play. The single player should have been $20-$25 and the whole thing should have been advertized as a platform with real, priced, DLC. The base game isn't worth $60, and that's the biggest issue. No one would complain about one online mode and only five maps at launch if they were free to play. Killer Instinct had it right.

I still don't see why the complain is all about if the extra content is free...

If you think the price is too high, just wait until the DLCs are out and you are good to go.