If Nintendo simply upscaled Ocarina of Time and sold it for $60, why do I suspect you'd be chomping at the bit, yet this other all-time great game gets a "Eh. It's been out for 5 years everywhere else." response.
Also, just to add my 2 cents that this is not a good argument, in a way Nintendo has done this with Wind Waker and Twilight Princess by upscaling them for the Wii U with maybe a few tweaks but no major overhaul or redesign of the game. I was not chomping at the bit for them. Despite Wind Waker being an all-time favorite game of mine, I only just picked up the Wii U version this past weekend because it was free. And even then, I'd have taken a different game I'd never played before over it if that possibility had existed. I have no desire to play the game anytime soon because I've played it so much already.
As for Ocarina of Time, I remember when Twilight Princess was finally released, the common criticism levied at the game as people beat it was its similarity to Ocarina of Time in many ways. Twilight Princess is almost a remake/remastering of Ocarina of Time and now that game has been put into HD. I played Ocarina of Time on the GameCube with the special Ocarina of Time/Master Quest disc that Nintendo released. I've got a second GameCube copy on the Zelda Collectors Disc. I've never bought the game on the Wii or Wii U Virtual Console but I did pick up the 3DS version since I got a good bargain on it and playing it in 3D was appealing enough to purchase it again. However, I have yet to still open its packaging and play it. If Nintendo were to announce an upscaled $60.00 version for Switch, I would positively not buy it. It's a fine game but it's been around so long and available on many consoles for people to play that I don't see it being a major draw for the vast majority of gamers. Heck, I can't think of anyone here ever posting that they wished Nintendo would re-release of OoT in HD at any time. It's like Rayman 2. Who here want's an upscaled version of the game? It's been around so long and available on many consoles that a $60 upscaled version isn't suddenly going to revitalize sales and demand for more copies of that game.
So, yes, I think the tepid response by users is the feeling of the majority of gamers by the announcement of Skyrim on Switch. It's great to see a major 3rd Party game like that on a Nintendo system. No one is against that. But I think the time where releasing Skyrim on a Nintendo console could have an impact has come and gone. At this point, a new Elder Scrolls game releasing on a Nintendo system alongside the competition would be a far bigger cause for excitement and positivity and be a true test of whether a 3rd Party game like that could sell on Nintendo hardware. Unfortunately, right now, releasing Skyrim just feels like it is going to be the same failed pattern of 3rd parties to release an old game that has already tapped into the majority of its market sales and will thus sell a small modest amount because of that on the new Nintendo hardware leading to the claim of 3rd party games being unable to sell on Nintendo hardware.
Has this tactic of selling 3 - 5 year old games on a new Nintendo system at full price while the competition has them available at 50% or less ever been successful for any 3rd Party? And yet, they keep doing it. The only one that may have been successful was Batman: Arkham City and I only say that because Batman: Arkham Origins was later released on the Wii U so I'm guessing sales were enough that they considered it was worth it to release that game also. Compare that to Rayman Legends. It was held back so that it could be released on the Wii U, PS3, and Xbox 360 at the same time and yet, from what I recall hearing, it sold the best on Wii U showing that when a 3rd Party does release a brand new game on a Nintendo console alongside the competition, it can still sell unlike releasing the third game of a trilogy in which the first two games are available only on other systems and you release a package with all 3 games on it at the same time on those other systems while trying to sell the 3rd game only to the market that hasn't had any of them before. Why not sell the complete trilogy also on the system/market that has never had any of the games on it before? The Mass Effect 3 release was one of the all-time boneheaded release choices by a 3rd Party absolutely designed to fail like it did.
Anyways, I've gone on about this long enough. It wasn't my intention to turn this into a long rant as to why Billy and the Clonosaurus is such a bad idea but once one gets started on this subject, it is hard to stop. Thank you! Come again.