Alright, so what I wanna say first is that I really DO agree with almost everything you say. Smash is amazing, the fact that Ultimate even exists the way it does is incredible and, as I said, its mere existence is enough to make me happy. I'm not at ALL trying to discredit the work Sakurai and his team put into making the game a real thing that actually exists in the modern world. Simply put, all I'm trying to do is as I originally said: call a spade a spade.
To me, it's quite clear that Nintendo wanted to make the most money they possibly could off of Smash Ultimate solely because of one distinct, irrefutable fact: They created an extremely content-packed Smash game in full HD on a console that sold far below their expectations. This was, of course, Smash 4.
I know that the game was also on the 3DS, but it's clear that a lot of extra development costs went towards making it for the Wii U. The game still ran at a steady 60fps despite being in full HD, something Nintendo struggled to transition to smoothly. A lot of heavy-hitting development costs were poured into this game, only to really go to waste compared to how well Melee and Brawl sold for their time periods. The fact that Nintendo is porting and reselling many Wii U games to the Switch for a full-priced $59.99 proves exactly how Nintendo really wasn't satisfied with the sales numbers of these games and wants to continue selling them.
I feel like Smash Ultimate is clearly facing a similar situation. Let me explain how.
Let's get into it by talking about the history of new content in past Smash sequels.
SSB64 - 12 fighters
SSBM - 26 fighters
SSBB - 38 fighters (including Pokemon trainer as 1)
SSB4 - 58 fighters (including Mii fighters and DLC)
SSBU - 75 fighters (including Mii fighters, Pokemon trainer as 1, and Piranha Plant)
Now, as you can see, there's a steady theme going on here: each Smash sequel has loads of new content. From 64 to Melee, we gained 14 additional fighters in addition to incredible new stages, mechanics, a timeless controller that is still considered the best peripheral to play Smash on, etc. From Melee to Brawl, we gained a few less fighters than before; only 12 additional ones, HOWEVER, these were all great additions. A lot of fat was trimmed such as Pichu and Dr Mario, and pretty much every newcomer felt like they really deserved their spot, with HUGE additions in Snake and Sonic. Plus, Subspace Emissary and online support right out of the box. And then, of course, a whopping TWENTY new fighters from Brawl to 4, in addition to the game running really well despite being in HD, something that Nintendo had a tough time transitioning to as a whole.
And then, 4 to Ultimate. We gained 17 new fighters; a lot were returning veterans, and as for how the game runs? The Switch hardware is very similar to the Wii U as a whole, essentially just serving as a much easier and understood chipset to develop for with more ram to play around with, which has lead to Smash Ultimate looking very similar to 4 on the Wii U as a whole.
I think a fair argument that can be made here is that this count includes paid DLC for 4, but doesn't for Ultimate, despite Ultimate having 5 paid DLC characters confirmed so far. And that's a fair argument, but it does play into the point I'm trying to make here; in order for Ultimate to feel like a true Smash sequel in terms of new content, it's required that you spend $84.98 on the game.
Now, it is fair to say that a lot more may have had to go into licensing and getting other companies on-board purely because there's a reason why a lot of these characters suddenly disappeared from past games. And while that may be true, it's something I'm not inclined to believe fully after the news came out that Square Enix and Cloud were almost the reason why Ultimate never happened. If I had to guess based off of the E3 showing alone who almost kept Ultimate from happening, I would without a doubt say Konami, considering how little they deal in console video games these days. However, the fact that not only Snake came back, but Simon AND Richter both got added in as brand new newcomers, has me believe that it couldn't have been all that hard working with other companies to bring every veteran back if Square Enix, a company 100% on-board with putting Cloud in not even 3 years prior, was the hardest company to deal with when it came to back-end licensing.
This is why I believe that there's a very good chance that Smash Ultimate is Nintendo wanting to make as much money as they possibly can off of the foundation they created with Smash 4, and why they likely cut development a bit shorter than they could have in order to attempt to make more money off of their product. The game looks very similar to Smash 4, plays quite a bit differently but still similarly enough to know that the game was most likely made in a modified version of the same game engine, has some brand new fighters but many are just remastered/slightly tweaked versions of pre-existing ones (which, if you've ever worked in design, engineering, or even game development (like I have), you'll know that creating a piece of work from scratch is about 10x as much work as graphically remastering an old but already developed piece of work), and as a whole doesn't feel like a WHOLE new game like every Smash sequel has in the past.
Let me sum it up with a comparison a lot of people will probably have no issues understanding: Smash 4 to Smash Ultimate reminds me a lot of Windows Vista to Windows 7. There were some small differences that a lot of people loved, but for the most part, both were EXTREMELY similar and the main reason why people loved the latter more than the former were simply because of the fact that the latter was on newer and better hardware. And because of that, because of the new hardware and because of a lot of the good, old things being incorporated into the new one, people fell in love with the new one.
I think this is fine. I think Nintendo wanting to make more money after 3-4 straight years of financial losses and wanting to give the HD games they worked really hard to develop on under-performing hardware a second chance is completely fine. I consider games like Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Bayonetta 2, and DK Country Tropical Freeze better than most $60 AAA games like Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty, and have no problem spending $60 on them despite them already being out for years. And that's kind of how I feel about Smash Ultimate as well.
People would've been happy if Ultimate instead ended up being a port of Smash 4 with all the DLC included and nothing more than that. The fact that it ended up being Ultimate as it is is just a bonus to everyone, and I think that the game becoming just that is absolutely incredible. However, that doesn't automatically mean the game is perfect, and the best it could have possibly ever been. And I think that having that thought and explaining why I have that thought doesn't at ALL discredit Nintendo, Sakurai, or his team. I think what it does is make me a normal consumer, a non-fanboy, who wants to see these products get better. And that's not me saying that you're a fanboy either; you could be, I don't know if you are so I won't make any assumptions. But what I am saying is that I, personally, am not one and will speak my mind no matter how good a product ends up being. Even the best things in the world can be better, nothing is perfect but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing to strive for perfection and constantly try to make things better.
So yeah. What Nintendo is doing is fine, I have no issues with it. I pre-ordered Ultimate back in August, I've already pre-ordered the Fighters Pass, and I assume I'll pre-order any future DLC if there ends up being any as well. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of signs surrounding the idea that maybe Nintendo did cut development for Ultimate a bit short for the sake of making a little more money. As I said, calling a spade a spade, not at all trying to discredit anyone's work.