Full Idea
I argue for the metaphysical neutrality of the possible worlds framework, but I do not suggest that its use is free of ontological commitment to possibilities (ways things might be, counterfactual situations, possible states of worlds).
Gist of Idea
Possible worlds are ontologically neutral, but a commitment to possibilities remains
Source
Robert C. Stalnaker (Reference and Necessity [1997], 2)
Book Reference
Stalnaker,Robert C.: 'Ways a World Might Be' [OUP 2003], p.171
A Reaction
Glad to hear this, as I have always been puzzled at possible aspirations to eliminate modality (such as possibility) by introducing 'possible' worlds. Commitment to possibilities I take to be basic and unavoidable.