Yeah as for this "$60 is too much thing", I've never understood the way some people try to assign prices rather arbitrarily, focusing on graphics or attempting to estimate how many man hours went into making it.

I've always looked at it more as a "how many hours of fun can I get out of this?" question. For instance, I play Battlefield 3 with friends and can already say that I'll likely get as much enjoyment and devote as many hours (which is to say far too many) to Splatoon as I've done with BF3. Heck, I'm fast closing in with Splatoon on hours played with Far Cry 4, a game I really enjoyed. I've already passed Shadows of Mordor, another game I liked.

Heck, I didn't feel ripped off by Captain Toad being $40 and have played many hours there to finish all the challenges (stuck on that gather 5k coins bonus level). I'd still say Splatoon offers a lot more than that, though, so the $60 mark doesn't bother me at all... Especially considering I had to drop an extra $50 on BF3 (thus $110 total) to unlock extra maps as I'd otherwise struggle to find any servers with my preferred game modes.

So yeah, I think $60 is totally fair for anyone who would get sufficient hours of fun out of it, and I suspect that's most people who'd try it.

That's exactly what's nagging me!! They had more then enough time to add more content to this game before release. If anything this game was delayed, it certaintly wasn't rushed. It's either a marketing strategy or most likely it was a very small team at Nintendo working on this game full time.  

Splatoon in my book doesn't deserve the same retail price has Mario Kart 8, Super Smash bros WiiU & Mario 3D world. Splatoon is more like a Captain Toad Treasure tracker effort. 

On the plus side, if this game sell a bunch of copies at full retail, you can expect more support from future DLC by Nintendo. Could be a win/win for everyone. I just know that i'm going to wait for a price drop or not bother with Splatoon. 

According to Nintendo, Splatoon was 10% done when they showed the debut at E3 last year. This means that they made everything in less than a year. Most likely not enough time to pack the game full of stuff. If you think about it going from 10% to launching in 11 months is pretty inkredible.

All I'll say is I've played a number of the "AAA" blockbuster games, and it's already clear I'll get more hours of fun out it than I did Far Cry 4 or Shadows of Mordor. Likewise, the same parts of the brain that fire up and get you excited playing BF3 are also active while playing Splatoon, so the experience feels quite similar, if not even more frantic as you race against that 3 minute countdown.

Really, if $60 is still a sticking point it's more your valuation of the time and resources they devoted to making this game as compared to some other $60 games that's holding you back, as the experience itself is a $60 one. That comparison to cheap app games like angry birds really doesn't work, as the experience is entirely different and it's more a time-waster than the fun, frantic nonsense that you're forced to focus on while playing Splatoon. Splatoon, essentially, is full-priced fun.

I see what you did there ;)

"Opening the market to everyone including younger kids that have always wanted to play FPS but that have stricted parents"

Alright, let's calm down. I get it, splatoon is new and exciting and people are enjoying but it isn't really doing much for the shooting genre. Kids have been playing shooters as early as freaking 8 for years, anybody that plays call of duty know that as well as I do. My cousin got call of duty modern warfare 1 when he was 10 or 11 (I was 14 at the time) and I can tell you that parents rarely, RARELY strict their kids from playing the CoD shooters types.

It seems a little overblown that Splatoon, despite higher sales (in Japan) than many nay-sayers expected, is somehow revolutionizing anything in the shooter genre, giving that it was released in a console which A) for all intents and purposes, has the lowest userbase of any current console (including the 3DS and even the freaking PSVita) and B) whose main consumers are already dedicated Nintendo fans, not casual parents and their kids.

On the actual topic of DLC, I am glad to see that they are doing it as DLC but it is still very confusing that they would release a multiplayer-focused game with a fairly low amount of content. It honestly does not feel like any "new model of DLC" but rather the developers not having all their stuff together and delaying certain content until they can get it working well (which is admirable however) so yeah, i disagree with ya on that end.

Well, in order to have an unbiased valuation of a game, we have to have a certain standard to the games we play. If most $60 games have voice chat, is it fair to pay $60 for another game that does not have voice chat. If most $60 games have customizable online games, is it fair to pay $60 for a game that does not. If most $60 games have a heavily packed local multiplayer mode, is it fair to pay $60 for a game that does not. The paintball gameplay seems like a mode that call of duty could implement for $10 rather than a fully fledged $60 title.

While it is true that you may have spent 80 hours in splatoon and 10 in far cry, I may have spent 10 hours in splatoon and and 80 hours in far cry (obviously these numbers are not real). However your experience does not warrant splatoon to be an $80 game, and my experience does not warrant it to be a $10 game. So the best way to actually price it, is by comparing it to the features of other similar titles that are actually $60 (or $40 or $20 ... you get the idea)

This, kids have been playing mortal kombat and street fighter way before smash came out and smash did not suddenly revolutionize the fighting genre when it came out, it just did its own thing. Same with splatoon.

Splatoon maybe cost 60$, but look how much Battlefield Hardline costs or what they want for BF4 (which was broken as fuck) to get the "Premium" aka Standard Edition.

I would rather pay 100 for Splatoon in the current form before EA get 79+ Bucks from me for their uninspired and broken garbage, Content is important but the gameplay is the real deal. Go play Counter Strike for comparison there are thousands of Maps and how many do they play, 3? 4? And I mean literally since decades!!

So I am ok with paying 60$ for Splatoon.

Does it make it easier to swallow knowing that you will be getting more contenet without added cost something the $60 games you are talking about don't do?  How many COD continually give you free new maps and free new modes?  It is a different delivery system so we will have to wait and see in the end how much content you get for $60 before you can really draw comparisons on content.  I could say the only shooter that is worth $60 is COD because none of the other games out there feature a Zombies mode.