... I think you're missing the point. Why would they have an NDA regarding the fact that they can't run the game exclusively as a home console? That doesn't make sense in the slightest.

Bungie: Hey Nintendo, can we make this game run only on docked?

Nintendo: No.

Bungie: I see....

Nintendo: Oh before you go...

Bungie: Yes!?

Nintendo: Remember this is under NDA. We don't want people knowing we don't feel like giving you the ability to do that. It's a secret (to everybody).

^ That generalized convo doesn't make sense to have under NDA. If Nintendo stated that their policy is all games docked must worked undocked, as you previously stated, why in the world would they need to have an NDA over the same thing?

If you only knew the type of trivial bullshit that is held under NDAs in the game industry... it's absolutely ridiculous. A potential project that was discussed that will never come to light? NDAs are pretty standard. I have a game that I worked on for the better part of three years that sits on my resume as "unnamed project". If you don't want to use my example, think about the number of cancelled games that only come to light because someone accidently mentioned it on their LinkedIn profile.

I perfectly understand that NDA's can be very ridiculous. However, all examples that come into light and your own personal experience (that sucks; sorry to hear that) seem to indicate these were new projects. Whether the projects were new IP's, new games in a franchise, or even a remaster these are all still technically newly developed projects that naturally haven't been announced. When I mean newly developed I more specifically mean in the process or even finished development, but it is still In a situation where development is still within company knowledge only. This is similar for ports with the understanding that ports are not within the launch window. With an already publicly announced game that is already a multiplat title, it doesn't make sense that there is an NDA for this particular scenario. Forgive me if I sound unreasonably skeptical, but the circumstances just don't add up to me.

the truth is they don't want to bring it to Switch

I hope Nintendo gets their online services up and running sooner rather than later. I'm still holding out hope for an Overwatch port eventually.

As things currently stand, I can see why a 3rd party might feel their online only games don't fit the console.

They're not always new projects, it's just the example I used was a new project. I do know of another project where the studio I was working for worked on a port of a multi-platfom game to a newer platform about six months before the release date of the new game with the intent of this port coming out some months after the fact. It was cancelled a month after the initial release because sales were much lower than expected, and there was little hope this platform would fare any better.

I should also reiterate, I'm not actually suggesting this did happen (of course, I wouldn't know if it did), it's just a plausible stuation.

And yes, I know it does sound like I could be making all of this up. I totally understand if you disregard all of this.

I believe journalists do this so they have something they can inflate endlessly and ride on some current movements pro or against something, just how they need it in a current situation. For example if Switch goes through the roof and is ultra popular and now Destiny 2 doesnt' come to it, then the media can say that the Switch doesn't need it anyway with the high momentum it currently had. If it's the other way around and the Wii U for example sold like shit and some blockbuster game didn't make its way to it, then the media can say that this is another nail in the coffin for an already fucked up console blah.

Its funny, as I was off to do something else, I was thinking about a scenario similar to that and wondered if it was a possiblity.

Even though its one of several possiblities, it was still interesting to discuss.

Also I want to apologize for my phrasing. Sometimes my biggest weakness is poor word choice. When I said I was skeptical, it was more so that the scenario with Bungie didn't add up to me and I had trouble understanding. You've never given me a reason to doubt your statements so I defintely take them into account.

Nintendo invented everything so they don't need this mediocre franchise.

I don't know why anyone is so conflicted about this. His reasoning is very sound and understandable. Nintendo has never been up to par when it comes to network and connectivity, I would assume that is one of the reasons why Bungie can't put the game on the switch because they very well know that Nintendo's Network Infrastructure is still not up to the standards they wanted.  Their reasoning for it being portable could just be a face, it defintely sounds better than "Nintendo's 2011 servers can't run our game."