Naw. I mean I will be the first to say Nintendo sucks ass with their hardware for over a decade but the concept of the Switch is that its a handheld and a console and its portable form factor is stronger than any last generation system. If 3rd parties weren't going to port anything recent (which they most likey could if they wanted to) there is still a lot of games they could have used to atlwast build a presence.
That's the thing, I don't think devs can just port anything if they wanted to.
I also don't think porting a bunch of last gen titles would be very appealing either.
The entirety of my point is you gotta take a risk and an investment to see benefits. Maybe it doesn't pan out but the cost of porting some sort of title to a console launch generally has a low bar for break even. The fact literally no one tried is what I find shocking. Not that I think EA is going to post up or anything but Activision or Ubi not trying at all with no signs of investment is strange to me. As far as how the games would run, the graphical hit isn't going to be as huge a deal because the masses are not expecting a PS4 or Xbox 1 on a system a little bigger than a GPS.
You have a good chance of exposure during a launch period but I wouldn't say you have a low bar to break even. You're still limited by a smaller install base.
The lack of Ubisoft support at launch is a bit surprising considering how well they've supported Nintendo systems in the past. I think the sting from the Wii-U fiasco is still too fresh for many publishers.
I dunno, games are a lot more scalable these days. There will be some pretty obvious downgrades but having a recent game available is better than having nothing.
Games are a lot more scalable but they still have a minimum set of requirements. I do agree that having something may be better than nothing though.
The Overwatch comments had more to do with continual updates for an online game from what I recall, which is what I addressed as being a bigger issue. Even in portable mode the Switch is a decent bit stronger than some low end PCs which play Overwatch perfectly fine, with zero optimizations.
I'd bet that Blizzard hasn't even touched a Switch devkit so they wouldn't know how hypothetical Switch port would perform, and with good reason due to the storage and online limitations as I mentioned above.
Not sure how this quote doesn't have anything to do with performance:
In an exclusive follow-up interview with Express Online, Kaplan said that Blizzard would have to "revisit performance" to make Overwatch run on Nintendo Switch.
"I think the problem is, we've really targeted our min spec in a way that we would have to revisit performance and how to get on that platform," he said.
Yeah he mentioned the difficulty with patching to 3 platforms already but not until he brought up the performance concerns first.
Also the Tegra chip is a well known piece of hardware. Developers don't need an actual hands on with a dev kit to assess how well the platform would handle their game. It's not like Nintendo added some secret sauce to the architecture.