You keep saying that, but the truth is that it doesn't have the player content to back that up, if its a player's guide, its not successful as one, it needs more crunch for that.
Your opinion does not equal the truth. I would argue that all of the book's content is "player content". It doesn't need to have the same quantity of character options as its predecessors did in order for it to qualify as a player's guide.
That's what we are trying to tell you, is intended to be for both player's and dms, so the content is more of a mix of what you'd find in a player's guide, a campaign guide, and a regional book. Its not just meant as a player's guide.
Yes, it is. It says so right in the title, and WotC has said so on the product page. All player's guides come with a mix of fluff and crunch.
Shall we do a more detailed comparison?
Forgotten Realms Adventures
It clocks in just under 160 pages, and it has six chapters, covering such topics as "The Forgotten Realms, Post-Avatar", "Gods and Their Specialty Priests", "Cities of the Heartlands", and "Treasure."
Yes, it has more spells than the SCAG, but quite a few of those were already updated to 5e with the EEPC. FRA also has no new character options (just a few pages detailing how the existing classes have changed from 1e to 2e). It also only provides details for the lands of the Heartlands, rather than all of Faerûn. It also, interestingly enough, has 11 whole pages on gems and jewels.
If this was a 5e book, it would probably be called the
Heartlands Adventurer's Guide.
Player's Guide to Faerûn
Clocks in at just under 200 pages. It has seven chapters, covering topics like "Races and Feats", "Prestige Classes", "Domains and Spells", "Magic Items", "Epic Levels", and a "Campaign Journal".
Many FR races have already been covered by the PHB and the EEPC, so that explains why there isn't much in the SCAG. And 5e handles feats differently, and it's good that the book isn't as chock-full of them as the PGtF is. There are no prestige classes in 5e yet, so that does away with that chapter. Some new magic items would've been nice, but they're probably saving those for the adventures and other DM-oriented products. We don't need epic level rules. The PGtF also describes the Realms' planes, but I'm not sure that's necessary this time, as it seems like WotC has made them realms within the existing planar structure outlined in the DMG (so Arvandor isn't its own plane, but a realm on the plane of Arborea).
Forgotten Realms Player's Guide
Has just over 160 pages and six chapters, covering "Races", "Classes", "Backgrounds", "Feats", "Rituals", and "Almanac".
The races chapter included rules for drow and genasi, which we've already got for 5e. Most of the chapter is taken up talking about how all the other playable races fit into the Realms, just like what the SCAG does.
The classes chapter includes one new class (swordmage), one new warlock subclass, the multi-class only spellscarred subclass, plus some FR-oriented paragon paths and epic destinies. Compare this with SCAG's 11 new subclass options.
The FRPG's backgrounds chapter is pretty comparable to the SCAG's.
Feats. Don't need 'em. Same with rituals really.
Then there's the Almanac, which is pretty comparable to the SCAG's first two chapters.
So how is the SCAG not like the other FR player's guides exactly?
It doesn't do what those books did, it would need 5 to 10 times the crunch to do so.
Again, this is just your opinion. Just because the SCAG doesn't have as much stuff in it as its predecessors did doesn't mean that a) it isn't in the same class as those other books and b) it doesn't achieve its own stated goals. Also, those previous books are full of a lot of chaff. Cut that stuff out and you'll find that the quantity of player content in the SCAG really isn't that far out of proportion. I think part of it is just that it doesn't take up as much space.
We get it. You're disappointed with this book. You want a proper campaign setting book, not a player's guide. But can you please stop trying to say that the SCAG is something it's not? Just because it's not what you were expecting doesn't mean it's wrong. It's just not what you were expecting.