Given the topic, i think it's pretty obvious that i was talking relative to the other games brought up. I was replying to the claim that SFV is more like Mario Tennis than Splatoon, not which of the three i consider the worst. But even ignoring that "Oh look it's in the title" factor, yes, outside of the online issues (which as with Splatoon's content cycling, i see as a separate, if also shitty issue), to me the end result of 'I'm getting less content at launch than i should be' is by far the most significant factor.

Personally, i think almost any situation where the launch product isn't the complete version of a game is unacceptable. I don't care if it's Nintendo time-locking, or SFV simply not being finished. Both are shitty, and both will inevitably be used as the justification for even shittier behavior.

Given the topic, i think it's pretty obvious that i was talking relative to the other games brought up. I was replying to the claim that SFV is more like Mario Tennis than Splatoon, not which of the three i consider the worst. But even ignoring that "Oh look it's in the title" factor, yes, outside of the online issues (which as with Splatoon's content cycling, i see as a separate, if also shitty issue), to me the end result of 'I'm getting less content at launch than i should be' is by far the most significant factor.

Personally, i think almost any situation where the launch product isn't the complete version of a game is unacceptable. I don't care if it's Nintendo time-locking, or SFV simply not being finished. Both are shitty, and both will inevitably be used as the justification for even shittier behavior.

That's reasonable, yeah. I thought the same, until I realised that the Splatoon formula worked for me, so I wouldn't mind if SFV in the end follows the same path as Splatoon. Why? It kept me going back in the game months after I first played it to keep track of the new content, while I normally play the game for a month and then just leave it. Obviously, I acknowledge that it works for me, but I completely understand the opposition to this way of releasing content. SFV suffers for a lackluster online experience and I think less content on the release date. Story mode or a competent single player mode would be great. The problem with this way of releasing content is that people might just not risk the money for a incomplete game. And that's totally understandable.

Street Fighter 5 = 6.4GB, 60€
Mario Tennis Ultra Smash = 1.396GB, 50€
Splatoon = 2.2966GB 40€

Cookies for you.

As if I would spend so much money on a game that is obviously not worth it.

16 characters and basic game modes are missing. That's below the standards the series has set for itself 20 years ago. The outlook for additional content isn't pretty either. In order to get more characters for free, you'll have to play the game a lot to earn in-game currency. Think about it, people pay 60 bucks for 16 characters; this at a time where double the roster size is basically the standard across all fighting games. But paying 60 bucks doesn't make people eligible to receive the missing content down the line; they'll either have to pay more or invest a lot of their time to remove the paywall.

I don't need to play the game to a slap a score of 5.0/10 on it. No matter how good the game plays, it completely misses the mark of what people can rightfully expect from a $60 release in the Street Fighter series. This isn't like Splatoon where new content will be made available every week right from the start at no additional cost (neither money or time) for the players. This is a game where additional content has no defined release schedule, because Capcom themselves have no idea when said content will be finished. Jim Sterling is right when he dubs Street Fighter V as Early AAAccess, because that's what it is. There's not even a rough idea of how much content is to come and when, and people will have to make further investments to get a full game.

People can talk about how Street Fighter V is mechanically sound, but that's what Mario Tennis: Ultra Smash is as well. So these two games are definitely comparable. However, Splatoon is something else. Splatoon's content was already finished at the time of release, Street Figher V's is not. This creates two totally different motivations for why the games were released in the state that they were.

Except he doesn't, you didnt even bought the game to beggin with, Splatoon had 5 maps yes, but it had also a ton of weapons and gear, a very good single campaign, a 1vs1 local mode, and 3 online modes, and those  modes were not broken as SFV where people cannot play online, splatoon worked perfectly, and the new content started coming the same week the game was released.

"Rol, you are right, but it hurts me to agree with you."