To understand the "Doom = 60 fps", you have to understand the culture Id Software circa Carmack built on that benchmark.
https://web.archive.org/web/2013062...tty-at-60fps-than-graphics-as-the-only-thing/
Carmack also
preferred a locked framerate to a variable one.
http://www.develop-online.net/news/carmack-next-gen-games-will-still-target-30-fps/0113660
Carmack even showed off Rage
running on an iPhone back during QuakeCon 2010... in 60 fps of course.
This focus on framerate was important in many of id's games in the previous generation. It became a part of the fanbase's general culture. This carried forward even after Carmack left id. That's was the framerate was something Doom 2016's devs.
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/doom-dev-we-want-to-be-the-best-looking-game-out-t/1100-6429178/
Like, I'm trying to get you to understand, 60 fps has been a selling point for id Software. It's been a thing they themselves have made a very big deal.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-doom-tech-interview
https://twitter.com/idSoftwareTiago/status/721238218113351680
It was a stated goal on
their official blog.
So if you're wondering why some folks are dipping, some of that is they prefer those higher (or locked) frame rates. But there's also the folks that have been told, for a very long time, that id Software games are 60 fps. That's the selling point, that's the key. And whether it actually bothers them, or they believe it does, that's why they're passing on the
concept of the experience.
It's probably better to save your disgust for something more worthwhile. As I noted above, Carmack got Rage running at 60 fps on iPhone with heavy caveats in 2010.
A port is always doable, it's just a matter of what cuts a developer or publisher want to make to the experience to fit it on a different platform. What becomes a problem is the
insistence that a dev or publisher do so. Some want to reach as many platforms as possible. Some developers, like id Software usually (which is likely why Panic Button is doing most of the heavy lifting on this), aim for higher spec systems and platforms. That's what they do. Especially in the case of some PC developers, the graphical presentation at those levels is a part of their vision for the title.
What becomes an annoyance - note, not an actual problem - is that the decision
not to make those cuts to your title is presented as wrongdoing and malfeasance. Ubisoft has a number of games on the Switch already, but the Assassin's Creed team deciding not to try and cram Origins onto the Switch isn't them being bad developers. They have completely valid reasons not to port to that platform, one of them being that their vision of the game leans on a graphically detailed open world.
The PSP, Vita, and 3DS have played host to some interesting ports of graphically-intensive games, as have many mobile devices like iOS/Android tablets. Anything can fit on the Switch, but it's a matter of A) if developers want to make those cuts and B) if fans are willing to stomach those compromises to buy the projects. Those are things publishers take into account in deciding to do a port.