Yeah, they def got some really successful IPs, though those feel a bit worn out at times.

Nintendo would do well to have Ubisoft, or other third party developers, simply insert Nintendo characters as playable (or even NPCs) in the Switch version of some of their games. That would give gamers a reason to purchase the games on Switch, even when they likely have some weaknesses relative to the PS4, XB1, and PC versions.

Well, they have kinda done this already, with games like Rayman Legends and Rocket League having Nintendo themed character skins, or Sonic Racing letting players race as their Mii. But yeah, good idea.

ASSASIN'S CREED: Mario's EGYPT ADVENTURE!

 Something doesn't have to be outright said to be obvious. Actions speak louder than words, as they say, and you can't possibly try to convince that there hasn't been a bit of an absence with it comes to Nintendo and third party support. 

Dont take this the wrong way, I like my Switch; it's a great secondary console. I just think the company behind has quite a bit of work to do before they can claim they've earned back trust. 

 What did I say that was infamatory. I, myself, am a happy Switch owner. Why am I excluded from being a little skeptical about Nintendo, especially knowing their past? 

I feel like we've diverged into talking about two different things here; like the OP, I was referring to Nintendo's openness to working with third parties, not the willingness of third parties to invest heavily in Nintendo platforms.

 The two kindof go hand in hand though; third parties have a bad history with Nintendo because of their lack of open-mindedness and all the restrictions they used to throw on them simply because they could. 

Again though, that was decades ago. Nintendo current practices appear to be quite open as shown by the simple fact that games like Mario + Rabbids and Hyrule/Fire Emblem Warriors exist.

Just to be clear, you being a "happy switch owner" doesn't actually substitute for an argument, or back up your opinions. Secondly, your comment was extremely negative, off topic, and when responding to people correcting your point ... you used consoles from the 1980's and 1990's to back up your claim. Maybe it's unfair to say it was actually inflammatory , or that it was meant to be inflammatory, but it sure seemed like it when I first read your comments, and I think you can understand from another perspetive how those comments read.

The problem with your posts in this thread isn't that you're a "little skeptical" about Nintendo. Let's be real here. The problem is that your comments don't actually make a whole lot of sense, so the negativity seems unjustified.

"Yeah, as long as it's exclusive to their platform and they have full creative control..."

>The game is developed around Nintendo characters. Why wouldn't it be exclusive? Do you see Playstation regularly allowing third parties to mess with their IPs? I sure don't. Do you seem them putting it on PC? Because as far as I can tell that doesn't happen.

>Ubisoft literally just said they had a lot of creative control around the game. What valuable input do you have that states otherwise? 

"I more or less referencing how they treated third party devs back in the NES/ SNES days. "

>And....that's relevant now....how??

"Meh. Far as I can tell, they haven't changed much."

>If they haven't changed much why were you specifically referencing their attitude in the 80's and 90's? Why not just use a recent example? What kind of sense does that make? 

"And I'm inclined to believe the other 95% of the third party industry that says otherwise. We can agree to disagree though lol"

"Something doesn't have to be outright said to be obvious. Actions speak louder than words, as they say, and you can't possibly try to convince that there hasn't been a bit of an absence with it comes to Nintendo and third party support. "

>...And this is where we come to the biggest issue. Your posts aren't on topic. You're talking about Nintendo not having much third party support, not restrictions to third party companies making unique spin offs of their IP. Nintendo being "Quite open-minded" to new creative ideas, in this scenario specifically involving their IPs, isn't the same at all as the amount of volume or quantity of third party titles they have. Nintendo doesn't have a lack of third party because they aren't open to fresh new ideas, or because they won't let companies mess with their IP. It's because the Switch is not a traditional console. 

What I see is a company that regularly allows third parties to use their IP for exclusive games to boost console and sales performance and to grow third pary relations. Or, when a third party game comes to their console, they'll allow exclusive skins as an insentive. That is closer to the topic, than "Wow, Nintendo Switch really doesn't have a lot of third party!"