Sure, but it doesn't seem like they're managing the IP right.
If it was a game as a service, they could make those changes in the base game as well.
Some of them are.
Remember that in Splatoon the single player campaign is an extra. In a lot of shooters new campaign=new game, but I wouldn't agree in this case. That's not where the meat is.
People really overestimate the viability of games as a service. Not every game can just be a GaaS and succeed to the level of being able to make overhauling changes like Fortnite.
The reality is that Splatoon 2 came out 5 years ago, was supported well into its lifecycle and received a pretty meaty expansion at that. In a world of shooter franchises with annual/bi annual entries that are far more cut/paste than this is, I don't really get the criticism. Even if it was GaaS, you're basically paying $140 for the content of 2+3. Not sure you come out cheaper than that over a 5 year span if they were to go the GaaS model.
Not sure on the SP take. Splatoon 2 single player was incredibly well done and in fact quite a bit different than the multiplayer loop. If anything I'd say Splatoon is one of the least tacked on examples of a campaign (in terms of shooters where multiplayer is the main hook).
Last edited: