Is this for real? I don't understand how people can be okay with all this.

Ah. That wasn't clear. Even still, I'd say that it's a matter of their prerogative, in the context of providing an online service. If they were charging for the other completed maps just because they could, I'd call that anti-consumer. This is just a controlled rollout of the game.

It seems like it's actually a rather clever idea, to me - rather than the game being released all at once, and being kind of like a sugar high (a great amount of energy, followed by a crash as nothing follows it up), it's released a little more slowly, and people get excited for each new map released. Note that this isn't quite the same as the explanation they provided... but then, they're not going to say "we're holding them back because it creates some great PR as we get to announce a new map every couple of weeks".

The game has no voice chat and I'm fine with that. As long as it has a mode to play with friends, I'll just set up a Skype. That way the console can focus on keeping the gameplay at 60fps.

Must you be so vulgar?

What are you referring to exactly?

thats what the mute button is for. If you don't like voice chat fine you should be given the option to mute it, not limit the option for everyone else

Can't speak for anyone else, but this is what I take issue with:

"First, we put a lot of effort into every inch of the online stages, so by playing them over and over again users can get a better feel for the terrain, giving the gameplay more breadth and depth. The characteristics of the weapons and the strategies for using them vary with each weapon, and of course these will vary depending on the stage you use them in and even what combination of equipment your teammates and opponents are using."

And then the reason for leaving out voice chat:

"We think there are two reasons for wanting to use it: to play strategically, and to know what you opponent is feeling. We designed the game so that it's still possible to play strategically, while also giving due consideration so that there is no extreme advantage one way or the other. In terms of knowing what your opponent is feeling, we really do understand the fun that can be had with this, but we hope that you will also understand that it can also have a negative effect too."

So, they dose out the content so users can get familiar with it and develop and learn strategies, and then go on to say that voice chat would be desired as an additional strategic tool, so they didn't want to add it. They want people to play the maps over and over and get skilled with the various weapons but they don't want them to plan and communicate to improve strategy?
That's ridiculous.

If they had simply stated that; "We don't feel that the game would benefit from voice chat, so we didn't add it." it would be fine, but this reasoning is out of whack.
There's also the strange suggestion that "those who haven't played shooters before" would somehow mix and play with people who use voice chat and take it more seriously, and that the latter group would somehow scare the other one away.
This is is also corny reasoning seeing as how the major reason newbies would be turned away from facing experienced players would be the fact that they would get owned by them, whether or not these better players were chatting with one another on headsets is absolutely irrelevant in this context.
Deciding to not add voice chat, although a strange decision imo, is fine, but his reasoning for it is not, see the difference?