That’s what the publishers keep saying, because it distracts from the real issue. (also- 3D artists, 2D artists and graphics programmers aren’t doing gameplay systems…)
The real reason is the monetization of play, if they make things too fun, you’ll keep playing some osingle player game instead of their expensive live service titles.
They make everything bad to try and prop up those live services.
Also to be fair (and critical), while Sean lied to both Sony and us about the state of the game-
They also probably did have most of everything they promised at one point, then the Christmas Flood happened. That’s when the lies started and but those lies were likely more for Sony rather than us, as it’s entirely possible Sony would have outright cancelled the game if they’d known how much was actually lost in the flood.
Instead they released what they could in the time they had left then just kept plugging away at it post release.
If Nintendo were only showcasing games developed AND published by Nintendo, that might be the argument.
They’re not though, some of the games they’re showing they didn’t develop or publish.
Nintendo says emulation is transformative, that due to the recompiler, it’s a new work. Do they have permission from all the rightsholders for third party games to make a transformative work?
Do they even have the permissions from artists who might have licensed their work to Nintendo for X game, but not for the newly emulated ‘Y’
No, it’s more like being a Rock Band, having 2 wildly successful albums then going in a another direction with a completely new, different sound for the third album, then wondering why no one bought it.