Yeah yeah you can sure hear the tone of my voice across the internet, I wrote yawn as it's tiring reading you get on edge because you're being replied to a prime example is your previous post on how your time is precious blah blah trying to go for some moral high ground yet here you are again that's what the yawn is for because I've seen it all before, the whole tone thing is in your head because mentally you're perceiving responses as being attacks I'm just not bothered to try and convince you otherwise as you already made your mind up. Passive aggressive claim and all that yet earlier you're trying to make sweeping statements on people giving Bethesda a free pass and just hating on Capcom despite being shown how the effort differs in your own words it's displaced anger, I'll address you the same way you come across.

Read the link you posted Hines was straight talking he said it's possible but went on further to say that it could still be quite a bit of work to get running on another platform which itself doesn't guarantee release even if its possible, you're going on about me cherry picking but the Hines argument ironically shows you cherry picking the hardware comment was even in reference to a different game and at the time they were working on Fallout 4 so yes hardware would have been an issue he's not wrong there. Skyrim on Switch is the Remaster release on PS4 and X1 so I don't see your point here Switch has familiar architecture that reduces the work load Hines was highlighting back then.

Clarify the last line as it's not very clear what you're asking, we'll start the argument a fresh from this point on.

You sure don't like going into detail about arguments given in a discussion, but you sure like getting extensive about your experience seeing and making people get on edge. I dunno man, again it reads like you want me to be on edge. I've talked to you about this and I'm not sure I've ever been disrespectful toward your position. The only thing was telling you why I think the way you adress my points isn't viable for any discussion, so your edgy estimations aren't correct. I haven't made my mind up either; haven't asked your for an apology or attacked you at all. There's no moral high ground to be had here - you're very confused about this. I'm not one to preach about that either. I'm just stating that you've been passive-agressive, which you have, because you're admitting it right there.

You post like you want to, however, and I'll talk about how your posts come across too. You're the one who replied to me when I was replying to someone else about wanting Capcom to fail, not the other way around. I've adressed all the points you've given to me even though I've had to deal with your comments that didn't add anything to it, like me being rambling to assume on your end the weird belief that I'm upset. An upset person would have insulted you or talked in a condescendenting egomaniac tone, not go through the effort of finding more sources to talk about this particular topic.

This is also the original point, which I also adressed the sweeping statement you say of:

So even when I adressed it, you kept with the passive-agressive attitude. It either tells that you came to me with that attitude from the get-go and wouldn't let go, or that you don't read what I'm saying.

And as for I come across, I also adressed the other two people in a polite manner (or at least I wasn't condescending toward them) and I satirized the Bethesda situation to explain why I felt the anger toward Capcom was short-lived and misplaced to a degree. A point that we've both completely gone off-track with a related, but not the same matter.

As for the second thing:

Let's read it:

"It's definitely a possibility for the future," Hines told the Official Nintendo Magazine UK. "We'll look at any platform that will support that games we're trying to make, but that's the key thing - the console has to support the game as it is designed."

The decision may come down to development costs. Hines notes that bringing a game to a new platform is actually a very costly and time-consuming process.

The more changes we have to make to a game the less and less palatable it becomes because making a game is an enormous process. Just doing 360, PS3 and PC - I don't think people understand the amount of work that goes into that. All of the localisation you have to do... all of the testing you have to do... on every platform in every language... It's a pretty huge undertaking."

"So you aren't just supporting the Wii U; You're supporting it in English, French, Italian, German and Spanish. We'll see. It's definitely a possibility"

Gamespot's article makes a similar mention:

"However, even if the Wii U can run a game just as Bethesda imagined it, that doesn't necessarily make the decision to add it to the platform lineup a no-brainer"

That's the original comment from Pete Hines, where the possibility (not factuality) was there. Hines says it depends on how economically viable it can be. It means it has to make money for it to happen, sure. He also mentions that the "console has to support the game as it is designed", meaning it can't overcome drastic changes. If you read into this sentence in a different way, then tell me what you interpret from it.

Let's read the second link I posted:

"None of the game's we've announced are being developed for the Wii U, so it's guaranteed that none of those games are coming to Wii U," Bethesda VP of PR and marketing Pete Hines told us at QuakeCon, with regards to The Elder Scrolls Online, Wolfenstein: The New Order and The Evil Within. "Will any future ones come out? I can't say for sure, in our near-term focus it's not on our radar."

"It's largely a hardware thing," Hines said, explaining that Bethesda's mantra is to "make the games that we want to make, on whatever platforms will support them as developed." Giving an example, he said that The Elder Scrolls Online "likely would have" been released on Xbox 360, but that it "just wasn't possible" due to hardware limitations. Specifically referencing future announcements for the Wii U, Hines said that "it remains to be seen what the future holds."

After reading both things, let's go back to what you wrote:

Hines argument don't ironically show me cherry picking the hardware comment. Hines argument show the fact that Hines changed the narrative in regards to why Bethesda games, which include Skyrim, weren't on WiiU. He went from a money-approach to a hardware-approach. Fallout 4 isn't even mentioned in the article, and it really doesn't matter if it was. I know Fallout 4 would have had a hardware issue on WiiU. That's beyond the point.

He even makes a far-fetched comparison (giving an example, as quoted with the article) with 360 saying it can't handle Elder Scrolls Online, and sure, that's true. But 360 can handle The Evil Within, Wolfenstein and, of course by proxy, Skyrim. The author of the article makes this comment as well:

This differs from the Wii U publishing reservations we've heard of from other companies, in that Bethesda's decision is based on hardware limitations, rather than the Wii U's lackluster performance at retail. EA, for instance, isn't bringing this year's installments of FIFA or Madden to Nintendo's platform due to the limited size of the console's installed user base. Similarly, Ubisoft was so confident that the Wii U would be unable to support the kind of sales it needed for Rayman Legends, that it delayed the game's release and extended its availability to other platforms.

But this was the point of the previous article:

The decision may come down to development costs. Hines notes that bringing a game to a new platform is actually a very costly and time-consuming process.

Not to mention the Switch version plays (or can potentially play if you choose to pick the joy-cons) differently than how Skyrim was originally designed, hinting yet again that the straight talk of Bethesda really is permutable. It changes depending on the narrative.

I'm guessing we're done with the Namco part.

As I said that's how your posts came across I just returned the same approach a core sign of what I pointed out is when the are no attacks posted yet someone starts complaining on the replies the way you did it signals the person is going off edge as a composed person wouldn't need to make such comments. When such posts are made it's very often to just undermine the argument with out making any argument themselves its a eye roll moment much like I tell anyone else if you think the is aggression it's in your head and you're most likely anticipating or looking for such a tone  to begin with believe me if I was aggressive you'd know I'd come out directly with it.

On Hines it's cherry picking because one interview is of him on possibly supporting the Wii U a full year and a half before launch and the other is on support much later with specific projects, you highlighted hardware yes but he never actually says that's the only reason on top of what the issue is in particular which harks back to architecture which falls into the hardware issue category and the amount of work it may require which is costly this is something he said straight up in his first interview when he said its possible, this was still early in the Wii U's life when developers were struggling to optimise even games on 360 for it, Fallout 4 doesn't need to be mentioned we know it was in development it even originally started as a 360/PS3 game. He hasn't back peddled he's pretty much stayed with in what he said earlier and gave a straight answer on whether they're supporting the platform or not, Skyrim Switch also doesn't play any differently either minimal motion control doesn't change how a game is.

While I agree with the notion of undermining arguments by ad honimen attacks, I'm fairly sure pointing out your attitude toward me (which I also said I was giving you the benefit of doubt in regards to that at first, and you confirmed in the previous post that you were, indeed, with that attitude all along) is not something that diminished anything because I kept on quoting you separatedly to address the points one by one. There was never "anticipation" in my head; if anything, my only anticipation was hoping I could read huge posts from you where we both would examine the points provided. When you'd made a comment that, indeed, would stick out as aggresive, I'd call on it, but I wouldn't mix it up with the rest of the arguments provided.

The only point was that I indeed said we were getting nowhere, and all the effort I was putting into legit going through the sources and quoting them and examining the sentences I thought appropiated where easily ignored with "congratulations you debunked yourself" comments that didn't even have any reasoning behind them or any explanation that could point out to that fact in regards to what I had said about it, but just mere passing comments, which yeah, prompted the "frankly you're wasting my time". It doesn't help that the posts you made afterwards read as in you were trying to actively cause a negative reaction from me, as if it was one of your intentions.

But since we're getting stuck and redundant with it, I want to point out this:

Then let me do something. If you really think this, then I'll apologize for it. It wasn't the intention, it was a satirical comment that I also explained on my posterior reply after you quoted me, but regardless of the nature of it, there's the apologies given. I don't attack people for their opinion, I'm just a fairly ironic guy and I guess it can come across as the wrong idea at times.

So I'm sorry for that.

Now there's this:

Let's just say I don't agree with the interpretation you give. Hines makes specifically a comment about the 360 being hardware that can't handle The Elder Scrolls Online. From where I see it, it means he's trying to explain games not coming to WiiU because WiiU can't handle it - but outside The Elder Scrolls Online, The Evil Within, Wolfenstein and Skyrim can all run on WiiU. After all, they do run on 360, and WiiU has certain advantages (except in CPU I think) over the 360, which means it truly can run them.

It can be seen as "it's too hard to work on it and ultimately means more money spent", but that's not the impression given by Hines. It reads simply as WiiU being not powerful enough to run those games. The author of the article also points out to the fact that Hines gives a reply unlike the other companies, such as EA, that don't put games on WiiU due to retail sales viability. At least for me, it reads as him backpedalling on his original "sales-oriented" comment.

Very well then lets start over.

Those games can run on Wii U sure but then it harks back to architecture again PS3/360/X1/PS4 all shared the same architectural type which meant when a game was being made for all platforms it was easier between the 4, hardware issue also doesn't mean power issue for example watchdogs on Wii U was atrocious and worse than the PS3 version even though the Wii U is more powerful due to developers not being as used to its architectural set up.

To me it comes across as more they looked into the Wii U found how hard it was to work with the hardware which was the issue and decided it wasn't viable even with the topic on how his view is interpreted he still gave a straight answer on whether the company will support the platform.

I guess I just look at it on a more pessimistic way: Bethesda outright neglecting support for Nintendo. It has happened ever since Bethesda released Home Alone on the NES, with the rare exception of some Star Trek games published by them on Wii and DS (unsure why). I think Hines saw the money potential of WiiU and that's why he remarked the possibility of it back in that moment, while noting that WiiU (given that it was an eight generation console) was bound to be - probably - more than capable of running the game. That's why he make a huge point about it; I have no doubt that had the WiiU being more successful, Bethesda support would have come sooner. When WiiU was being seen as dead, they choose the "polite" answer which some other devs said - that the WiiU's hardware was a problem - instead of the sales one, like EA said.

Even if it was a NDA by Nintendo, I guess it was just very bad timing for Bethesda not to outright say that at least Skyrim was coming to Switch, which caused some people in this forum to wonder if there was going to be any Bethesda support at all. I just assumed Bethesda was still very cautious, which is why then Skyrim got announced but Doom and Wolfenstein 2 would be announced later down the line.

At least we've settled your stance and mine toward this. As for Capcom, I do agree their PR stance was bad. I mainly pointed out that people should buy the games they want, and not feel the need to appease for any company. Capcom was bound to support the Switch yes or yes when they realized the goldmine it is; they just took more time than most to realize it.