| 0D0 said: In my opinion, this 3rd party picture means nothing. Support can mean just 1 game. Bethesda could just try the waters with Skyrim and then abandon the console. The same for the others. |
Again, I pointed this out in my comment as well already, that I know that lists truly don't mean anything really until we actually see games from the developers on it, but think about it.
Bethesda wouldn't even give the Wii U the time of day given how underpowered it was. If the Switch was to be apparently significantly underpowered yet again, why would Bethesda NOW all of a sudden decide "Oh ok, nah we're fine with underpowered hardware", especially after they were QUOTED saying they would only ever even consider supporting the Switch if it was at least at Xbox One power level. It is quite a possibility that Nintendo may have worked things out with third parties for support, but i'm highly skeptical of that given Nintendo's track record with third parties in the past.
The Wii U was a significantly underpowered system and look at the list of third party developers it got, and that was going off of the HUGE success of the Wii.
The above is nothing compared to the Switch list of developers. You didn't see developers like From Software, Bethesda, and a lot of others supporting it. So if the Switch is gonna be another Wii U in terms of hardware according to the Digital Foundry report, why would all of a sudden these said developers NOW change their mind and decide to support the Switch after not supporting the Wii U? It's possible they could have simply just had a change of heard, but who knows. It doesn't add up for the Switch developer support list to be that big though if it was just simply another significantly underpowered system. Not to mention that like I said already, the Wii U got some support simply because some developers wanted to be there in case it turned out to be another Wii situation but it didn't turn out that way. The Switch is coming out after the failure of the Wii U, but yet the list is significantly bigger than the Wii U list of developers is.
Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Switch be significantly underpowered like the Wii U was, but with the reports that people like Emily Rogers and even Nvidia themselves have said about the Switch being easy to port to and run third party games on and how hardware wouldn't be an issue, something doesn't make sense here.
