Well that's unfortunate, but come on that's not the fault of the updates and that still didn't mean you had to play it immediately. That may sound silly but I do have games I bought months ago but haven't played yet, namely cause they were on sale. Oh and technically Nintendo did advertise it as a complete game from the get go with the updates being treated as bonuses so you could always look at it that way. :L

Buying games later has been the smarter thing to do anyway thanks to price drops and deals, but in Splatoon's case it's fair for everyone regardless of when they buy it as they'll all be getting the same content. You may be tired of the game, of which is your own doing, but that doesn't change the fact that your copy now has everything on it, the same stuff that people buying it today have. Now I could answer your last question, but that's really getting off tangent.

For them? Yes, considering their year would have been much weaker if they waited til winter to release the game. Ideally though a launch with more content is better, but a bare bones game with monthly updates is better then a summer draught

I think my last question is very important. Since you think it's okay for Splatoon, do you also think it's okay for its sequel, and entries in other multiplayer focused games?

Meh, it's a what if that's irrelevant to this thread. If other games end up doing it, we'll talk about it then!

I get the feeling you're dodging the question because you know what the implications of either answer are

Well you already dodged the majority of my post so I think I'm allowed to dodge an irrelevant question.

Of course it worked, and thanks to that the interest for the game was very high for months, people keeps making dumb compariosn with games like Destiny when there is a huge difference: Splatoon added content (most of it unlocked actually, since it was already on disc) had no additional cost.

So if I reply to the rest of the post (I'm not sure what more replying there is to do, I feel I've already expressed my opinion and you have yours), you will answer my "irrelevant" question?

And I think it's very relevant. If it is okay for Splatoon, then it should naturally be okay for other games, and I don't think you mean that you would like to see the next Mario Kart and the next Smash Bros to launch this way. Now, if you'd answer that question, I'd know what you think and wouldn't have to assume here. Likewise, if it isn't okay for the next Mario Kart and the next Smash Bros. why does Splatoon get an exemption? New IP? Meaning that you disagree with this business practice except for with new IPs?

Not trying to put words in your mouth, but those are some of the implications of either answer, which is 100% relevant to the topic of this thread, which is why I asked. I can't force you to answer the question, but you can hardly claim it's "irrelevant".

I think that metacritic plays an important role for sales nowadays and that its metascore was affected negatively by the fact that the content was a joke in the beginning. It still sold more than many expected, but I don't hope that nintendo keeps releasing games with too little content.

This thread is about Splatoon, not other games, hence irrelevant. I had to say this a lot before Splatoon released as people loved to bring up DLC from other games, all of which were clearly handled very differently. The question can't be answered without knowing exactly how Nintendo would go about it anyway.