It has no effect on how Splatoon was released, and I've never claimed that either. What I'm saying is that it's relevant what you think about this release method for other potential games. And it's relevant to this threads topic, so why clutter up the forums when we can discuss something that's perfectly related to this thread, in this thread.
This thread is not about what I think about this release method for other games, so nope.
Like I asked you in a previous post, would you answer the question if I replied to the rest of your post? You never answered that question though, so I wouldn't know, but since you seem to care about that part, here you go:
I don't care really, was just pointing out hypocrisy.
Yes, it's not the fault of the updates. It's an effect of them.
So it is but it isn't... lol whut? Every game ever has something inherently about it that'll make it unsuitable for some people, be it genre, rating, artstyle, platform, and anything really. It's the consumers responsibility to make sure what they buy suits them. You wont see people who only own a PS4/XB1 buying Splatoon for that reason.
Allow me to draw a comparison here (or would I be going off-topic and be talking about irrelevant stuff by mentioning anything else than Splatoon?): If a game needs a day-one patch to work, and a person gets that game, but the person doesn't have internet to download it, or he has a data cap, or slow download speeds, anything prohibiting hom from downloading the patch, it's not the game's fault, right? However it is an effect of another undesirable business practice. Similarly to this.
It was known well known before Splatoon released that it's heavily online focused and would be recieving frequent updates. If you bought the game despite knowing you have internet issues, that's your own fault. The game simply wasn't for you then, which is fine as no game is for everyone.
That technicality doesn't really matter much. None of us are that gullible to believe that one 4th of what we have now was actually the complete game, and that the rest was just free extra stuff they gave to us because they are nice. Splatoon wasn't a complete game at launch. It was a polished one though, and I commend that, but I don't buy the "technically Nintendo did advertize it as a complete game". Allow me to make another comparison (unless that to will be too irrelevant for you): Technically Activision advertized Destiny as a complete game at launch. And before you go out of hand and say "Well you had to pay for Destiny's DLC", yes, you did, and that wasn't the point of my comparison. It's just that however the game company advertises the game doesn't really make the business practice better.
Taking the joke too far there buddy.
Yes, buying games has been the smarter thing to do in any case, but that doesn't change my stance on a undesirable business practice.
Nor does what you said change why it's fair in Splatoon's case. Again, the only real difference it makes is letting you get the game sooner if you want, the OP has already elaborated on the benefits of this. Getting the full game all at once was always still an option and infact is now the only option anyway, and everyone who bought it sooner now has everything with nothing stopping them from playing it.
Now will you answer my question?
Uh no, how many times do you need to be told why it can't be answered?