A list of publishers doesn't replace a list of games

PSVR had a *pretty* list of companies too, worthless

To be there they just need to release one product and that's it, Bethesda could release Skyrim Remastered and skip the next Wolfenstein, ES, Fallout, TEW, etc, Square can release a Bravely or DQ game and never any FF title. And so on.

Neither of those are up on Bethesda.net at all and have nothing to do with the mod controversy.  Do you actually know anything about this?  I'm getting the feeling that you don't.

I remember when Saints Row was supposed to come for the PSP! :P
Nah I totally understand your reserved behaviour, I am reserved on the idea as well, but at the same time, it has locked in some solid support for good Japan sales, aka Nintendo themselves without two platforms to worry about. 

If each company only makes 1 game for the switch, that's still something like 50 games. If even half of them support the system regularly we may never see game droughts again, so here's hoping.

Sure I do, but more importantly, I know how Nintendo gets about the things they are willing to allow on their platform. But hey, why try to have a reasonable conversation when you can be arrogant and act superior?

Great Job. How about instead of talking to people, you spend your time talking to brick walls. M'kay?

User was moderated for this post

-Super_Boom

You might want to look at a mirror on that one, m'kay?  Or did I imagine your "memo" remark?  I ask because you keep saying stuff that honestly makes me wonder.  Why would you bring up "nudity and child killing mods" when they aren't allowed on Bethesda.net at all, much less consoles?  Sony and Bethesda might have made a deal but in the eyes of many consumers it is far from being a satisfactory resolution.  Besides that, I don't even know why you started an argument when all I did was ask a rhetorical question that neither you nor I can answer yet.  We can guess, sure, but unless you can prove to me that you knew Skyrim would be on a Nintendo system in the first place, then those are just assumptions.  I'm not going to argue over assumptions and, frankly, I don't know why you want to.

Yup. This.

I expect an almost exact repeat of the Wii U's fate.

That is a good list, but the question is: Will they stay?

And, will they bring the real goods? I'm hoping for some JRPGs to come to the console.

You asked if there were mods, because if Nintendo had them, that mean that it would push Sony into the doghouse, and to me, being a reasonable person, the only way some could possibly think that were true was if they still thought mods weren't coming to the PS4.  This is of course, assuming that the Switch actually gets a version of Skyrim that can support mods. For all you know it's getting a slightly more polished version of the PS3's version of Skyrim, and that's it.

But how? How can you possibly assume that if Nintendo has mods they will be less restrictive than Sony. Why would you think that? On what grounds? Nintendo doesn't even like people talking to each on their platforms (to the detriment of gameplay, might I add) because someone's poor precious darling might hear a bad word. Do you think for one second that Nintnendo is going to allow anything that /might/ alter a games ESRB rating for half a second?

Pardon me for assuming that you couldn't possibly have known that Sony and Bethesda had worked out an agreement, because it is not reasonable to assume that mod support on a Nintendo console would be more open than mod support on a Sony console. Sony won't allow users to use mods that require uploading external assets, what makes you think Nintendo will? Seriously. What other decisions and announcements have Nintendo made in the past, that would make you think they're more likely than Sony to allow mods with external assets.

Because based on my experience with them, to pretend that Nintendo is less likely to lockdown their console than Sony is is completely laughable.

It will probably be ports at first from many of them.