if we're using the assumption that NIntendo don't mind to spend budget when they really want to do a character, that could be used to explain they are willing to do a whole new character, not necessarily promoting the NPCs.
(And still I'm against the idea that promoting NPCs is easy, since moveset has been recognized as the core of a fighter).
My point is, put some other special cases aside, maybe some of the characters do not suit the NPCs since the beginning when other characters would fit in better? In the case of Spring Man, some may argue that he is a very vital character so the AT treatment isn't appropriate.
That's why I say people should complain about the ATs even if they're not garunteed to be fighters in short time.
You've missed my point about budget. My point was that it would be
cheaper to upgrade Assists because some assets have already been made. And I never said promoting NPCs would be
easy, I just said it would be
easier than starting from scratch.
It could be either we treat this as a special case, or be a reason why fans can ask NIntendo to fix Robin's final Smash to avoid the conflict. Otherwise it'd be same with Spring Man being both cameos in final smash and assist trohpy, this point of view doesn't help too much for new fighter argument.
On the other hand, since all the past traces of the currently promoted fighters (Dark Samus, Ridley, Isabelle, Mac) have been removed intentionally, it ends up like a 4 against 1 voting.
I've noted this before, the matter is if "characters being playable and nonplayable" idea is legit, it should be implemented as a common rule to all characters in this game, such as Bowser as stage boss, Mario as AT and Pichu as pokeball summon. If people just want to use that argument for a specific future DLC fighter, that wouldn't make NIntendo feel this is an honest and fair opinion.
It'd be like you go to meet your company boss, you complain that "all employess should get more rest!", that's persuasive. But if you say "only I should get more rest", that doesn't sound too right.
But that's a false dichotomy, there's more than two options here. You saying that characters should be implemented in non-playable roles, like Bowser as a stage boss, is all fine and good, but acting like the only options are "everyone gets a secondary role" and "nobody can possibly ever have more than one role" is, quite frankly, stupid. As we see
in the game, characters hold more than one role, such as my previous example Chrom, King K. Rool, who also has a Mii Costume, characters like Link, Samus, Captain Falcon, and more, who
also have Mii Costumes, and hell we even have a precedent for playable characters having a non-playable role and being replaced under certain conditions: Toon Link's role on Spirit Train is just that - a cameo that can be replaced.
Every previous example of Assist "upgrades" has been between games, because DLC hasn't really been an option before. Smash 4's DLC was mostly returning vets and new third-parties, first-party characters weren't really on the table, and FP1 was decided before the game was released, meaning ATs probably weren't available for that one, either, but that's clearly changed for Fighter Pass 2, since Min Min was the first character of FP2. I'd love it if Robin's Final Smash was changed, but since it wasn't, it means that "issues" like that didn't bother the staff enough to change it.
I think what my overall point is that if Nintendo wants a character to be added to Smash Bros, Sakurai wouldn't be held back by a decision made three years ago to make them an NPC for the base game,
especially if he gets a chance to please fans, which is his stated goal.