HD is a non-factor for the most part in game development. 2 or 3 years has typically been the industry standard development cycle, even on non-HD consoles. Unless its large scale AAA project, HD isn't some mythical roadblock that slows development up, as it's just a resolution. Plus with tools and engines like Unity and Unreal 4 these days, game development can actually be easier and faster than ever if you want. Again, I point to Snipperclips which was made in one year by 6 people. 

People are in for a rude awakening if they expect game production to double. That's unrealistic.

That's not actually what people are saying. Between home console and handheld, Nintendo publishes around 25-30 games per year give or take. We're not asking to double that number, we're just asking for those roughly 30 games a year to be largely on one platform. If that's the number they could pull on just two consoles, there's little reason they can't maintain that on one. 

Great example of what i was saying. Increased resolution means everything is harder to make cause it has to be more detailed. 

It isn't the flip of a switch you are thinking. Development cycles have increased in the last 2 gens. It's not more dramatic because development teams got increased as well.

AKA, you think this is easy, but it's not. HD are more complex projects with more work and more people. 

Oh and please, spare me the asset flips.

Well yes, games with higher quality details and larger scope require more time and resources. But that's true of any new console HD or otherwise. HD is a resolution, it doesn't make game development harder or longer on its own. It all comes down to team size, and project scale, as it's always been. The increase in team sizes and development times with some games has more to do with spectacle creep and ever increasing ambition of project scale and graphics expectations rather than just HD as a resolution. You might have had an argument back in the late 2000s, when HD was still new and still being learned by developers. But with the rise of the indie scene, and acclaimed, easy to use engines such as Unity and Unreal 4, it's not much of a big deal any more.

And I already gave you Snipperclips. An example of a great original game put together in one year by 6 people, and that's an HD game. If 6 people can do something like that in a year, then that should tell you that HD isn't the problem

Of course, they can just flip that switch and have every texture streched and pixalated, because no one will mind or notice!

No, it's not the same. You increase the resolution, you have to increase the detail, wich means more work to create every piece of asset... or you can deliver a blurry mess. You heard it here first folks! Lets just strech out those 3DS games and put then on the Switch. It's gonna look amazing on 720/1080p!

Cmon now... i'm not gonna repeat this again.

You completely mis-interpreted my whole argument. Yes, of course games can require more time and resources with increases in graphics and resolution, I already agreed with you on that. But this purely on a case by case basis, and doesn't apply to every game as it depends entirely on the team size, project scale and even development tools. Which means that resolution isn't always a factor in a games development cycle. Snipperclips, again an HD game, was put together in one year, while Super Mario 64 back in 1996, a non-HD game took 4 years to develop. Generally 2 or 3 years have always been the standard for development time, even in the HD era, and even on low-res consoles like the 3DS. Yes, if your porting 3DS games over, or making a follow up to a 3DS game on Switch, you'll need more people and more time to convert and/or create more detailed textures and environments for HD. But doesn't automatically apply if your making something completely from scratch in Unity or Unreal Engine 4. That's the point I'm making

Exactly, we arent going to get 3DS+Wii U output but it will be a good deal better than each of those got individually and already is in the same timeframe.

It honestly wouldnt surprise me if these Wii U ports with added content require a similar amount of resources as an average sized 3DS game.

I seriously doubt that as they're heavily recycling assets from already existing games, and are often the same resolution. Those Wii U ports had to have been made in a year, maybe less. I could see something like Yoshi Switch taking around 2 years to make, but It does not take 2 years to make an enhanced Wii U port. 

Whilst what you say is technically true it is misleading as far as trying to establish Nintendo's productivity, as a big chunk of that list are wii u ports. Even botw spent a large part of its development as a wii u game. To more accurately peg N's output capabilities, we should take the ports out, at which point we're left with a significantly less impressive games per year rate. 

Bringing over these ports was absolutely the right thing to do as they made the best of a bad situation with a solid library that launched on a failing system, but they're going to run out of these ports soon which means to maintain this volume of releases they're going to have to step their game up big time.

They are sitting on a tonne of money from the wii days, which is only getting bigger thanks to switch, so I really hope they invest a good chunk of it on increasing capacity and/or bankrolling projects with 3rd party devs a la Mario + Rabbids!