VR is a gimmick. I may not have used it.
But there has been not one thing about a VR game shown at a game show that made me go that was necessary. Some of it is cool sure, but...
It's as unnecessary to play a game as motion control was back when everyone was trying t o do it after the Wii's success.
As for your claims of performance looking weaker on the handheld side, well no ****, do you seriously expect the first major HD handheld to be the uttermost powerful thing out of the gate? I surely as hell don't. It still looks much better graphically as ahandheld than Sony's attempts and the PSP/Vita were pretty impressive in that regard.
Just because it's unnecessary for you personally, doesn't mean it's not a really big deal. Your argument is as flimsy as the "Switch is a novel gimmick" detractors you are trying to take a shot at, as their perspective is LITERALLY the same on the Switch. They don't like it, so obviously it's just novel, right?
And I'm sorry, but that performance wasn't weaker, it was flat out bad. Something it cannot afford to be. If the main feature of the console is playing "home console quality games on the go", it CANNOT afford to have a Wii U game of all things, running poorly on the go. To be console quality games on the go, the games have to stay perfectly stable on the go.
They're most likely just waiting for a Direct or a software showcase to discuss it further.
I highly doubt Bethesda would have their game featured prominently in a new trailer, and then say "ha ha it's not actually in development for the Switch". That's PR suicide.
It'd be PR suicide for Nintendo, not Bethesda. Meaning it's totally plausible as they've made terrible PR decisions like that before.
Bethesda's main market is PC gamers and Xbox gamers, neither of which will really care about the Switch and whether or not it has Elder Scrolls.