We were specifically talking about people skipping the native Switch version of a game so that they can play the Game Pass version later. And I was giving an example of why that wasn't a practical mindset. The expanding library and that old game narrative weren't a part of that discussion.
Isn't Super C owned by Konami? :p
Part of the problem right now is everything is just speculation... wild speculation. So, its no wonder that we see some thinking that this completely undermines Microsoft and at the same time other thinking this completely undermines Nintendo. I'm confident (assuming this rumor is even true) that once details emerge the limits and benefits to each company will be made clear. For now, I'd say that the basic benifit to MS is more subscribers, while the basic benefit to Nintendo is more content. Anything more nuanced , isn't very helpful at the moment.
I used "content" because that was the term Reggie was using last year in response to Hulu and Netflix questions. I think "content" alone can justify the deal, but I'm also sure that money is a part of the negotiations. I doubt those details are anything so far out of the ordinary that "poisoning the well" is worth discussion and it that it's definitely too soon to even go there.
Honestly, that depends on how good the port job is. Yeah, they'll have to downgrade some things, but I can't imagine a last-gen game like Halo 4 being unable to run at 1080p 30fps on the Switch. There are several remasters on the Switch that run significantly better and look better than their Xbox360 and PS3 counterparts. MCC shouldn't be an issue powerwise, even in handheld mode.
