its a mini game mode in fps perspective woopie doo.

as long as the main game is fine the mini modes don't matter too much

I don't think they want to sabotage them but then there are some questionable decisions 3rd parties have made like releasing Mass Effect 3 on Wii U while releasing the trilogy everywhere else for the same price..

It is a mode... not the meat of the game.

Some Wii games live and die by the motion controls because that was the meat of the experience. Even if this mode was decent, it is only 3 stages and was obviously an afterthought to the core of the game itself which is, in honesty, unimpeded.

This game will be fine and so will any game that makes poor use of motion controls where motion controls are not a highlighted feature of the title.

I was gonna point that out as well. Because that was hogwash what EA did. What was the point of porting just the third installment when the entire trilogy was going to be released in one package not too far from then? 

Also Rayman Legends. Why delay release of the Wii U version just to release it along with the other versions?

Not saying other developers do this, but you can't ignore some of these head scratchers.

already setting up the blame game for it third party is unsuccessful on the switch eh?

It's not just developers fault though. If Nintendo want good ports of most third party games they need to release a machine on par with the ps4 or xb1. Then the developers can literally press a switch and the game is ported.

Well, I wouldn't say that they were sabotaging those versions, more that the developers were too time constrained/worked on too small of a budget to have them reach the potential that they could.

I get annoyed when pepole think porting is as simplistic as this. Not to say ports take as long as main games to develop, but porting a game to another system still requires a lot of work. It's not just a a matter of copy-pasting code onto a development kit. Now you have to optimize that code, make the visuals work within the hardware, program any new features, re-map all the buttons. It's not as straightfoward as what some believe.

I think developers would be willing to port their games to the Switch, only if the Switch has the sales for the games to make it worth it. If a shoddy port of GTA 5 fails, then of course developers aren't going to bother with it. But if a really good port of Overwatch does well, then the developers will consider the extra effort worth it. 

Contrary to belief, developers don't mind working with underpowered hardware just as long as the sales are there, and the porting proccess isn't impossible. 

I think Nintendo has done a decent job at inviting development for its platform. Switch dev kits cost under $500 ( https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/nintendo-switch-dev-kit/ ). Contrast this to the PS4's dev kit cost of $2500 ( https://www.polygon.com/2013/7/24/4553842/so-how-much-does-it-cost-to-develop-for-playstation-4 ).

Unreal Engine 4, a very popular engine, is supported by the Switch ( http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/10/21/nintendo-switch-will-support-unreal-engine-4 ) thus I have good reason to believe developing for the Switch is very low-risk right now: develop a game for the Switch and you can easily port that to the PS4, XB1, and PC adding to the pool of potential customers to buy your game. PS4, X1, and PC should have little issue running anything the Switch can.

If I were a dev, I'd consider developing for the Switch and I'd have the other three platforms to fall back on if the game doesn't do too well on the Switch.

How are they tying to sabotage Nintendo? No company would waste money just to "sabotage" Nintendo lmao