Yes they did, but my point is not whether they made a profit or not, its how big the profit margin is to keep bringing it to the system at that time. COD was not as big in those 5 times they brought over COD. So if they made a couple million here or there, off course they would be happy. In the current Activision, a couple million here and there is not enough. So hypothetically, If a game is made on Switch with a budget of 20 million dollars, but the developers only managed to recuperate 1 million along with the 20 million budget, you're still making 1 million, but in a business standpoint, you'd be stupid investing 20 million to only get 1 million back. Knock off the first three CODs, because COD was not a big franchise back then, so any profits they made was already expected, and knock off last two CODs because by the time COD became a billion dollar franchise, Black Ops and MW3 were already being developed. You need more modern examples, because information about COD and Activision in the Wii era is simply outdated.

An argument I often see leveraged against the Switch is that third party games "don't sell on it", and that because many games sell better on PS4, that means their Switch sales are bad and there's no reason to keep bringing them over.

This reasoning, however, doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Let's cast our memories back to the Wii. 5 Call of Duty games were ported to the Wii from 2006 to 2011. With the exception of COD3, these all sold less than 2 million, yet they kept coming, year after year. If they weren't profitable, Activision would've called it quits after 1 or 2. Sure, sales were a fraction of the PS3 and 360 versions, but that didn't matter; they obviously did well enough to earn money.

Generally speaking, it's not all that expensive to port a game that already exists. The game itself may need to sell millions in total to turn a profit, but a port might only need to sell, say, 500k to recoup the costs of conversion.

Take Skyrim on Switch; it's well on its way to cruise comfortably passed the million mark, (if it hasn't already) and while it probably won't sell as much as the PS4 version, it doesn't need to; as a port, it could likely do 800k lifetime and still turn a profit for Bethesda, and at the end of the day that's what matters, not whether it's the best selling version, but whether it makes money.

Now, obviously there are other factors, like how difficult a specific game would be to port. But the arguments that "oh it sold less on Switch so it wasn't successful" or "it wouldn't sell as much as the PS4 version so why bother" are fundamentally flawed and illogical.

Selling less than on another platform obviously turn it in less successful, but I rarely see it used as argument. It is mostly it sold so low that the port was meaningless, and that isn't selling a little less than PS4 or X1 but considerably less.

And devs aren't dumb. So we pretty much know also that if a port can be made and turn profit they will more likely do than not. So this should also debunk any theory of conspiracy that a port isn't on Switch because devs are dumb or hate Nintendo.

Have you read the story behind the port of the Crash N Sane Trilogy on Switch? It was just one single developer testing out the first level on the Switch hardware out of curiosity. He saw that it worked and it took him very little effort. Then he showed that to his superiors and the port was greenlighted. So what can we learn from this?

We see how Activisions' management never considered this port in the first place. The management never even thought about checking if it was possible at all. They straight up ignored a new rising system which had a strong entry into the market and hosts an audience which is known to enjoy platformers. So how do you call a decision like that? Exactly, it's dumb.