Yeah, but XB1/PS4 hardware was known for devs some time in 2012. while Switch hardware was known in 2016.

https://gamerant.com/red-dead-redemption-2-8-years/

Fair enough, but you honestly believe that they would have made RDR2 for Switch (at the risk of watering down the game on the other platforms? Because if they can't make the current game port on Switch then they would need to remove from the game to allow it)?

I have Red Dead 2, but still put most of my focus on Smash, Starlink, Wolfenstein 2, and Warframe.

Red Dead is not a must play for all gamers.  It is a great game sure, but no one is missing out if they decide they do not want it.  For example, I hate GTAV.  By not playing a game I do not like, in no way and I "missing out".

Besides, it is not like Switch does not have its own games rated at 97 on metacritic...the only difference is at least one of those games won GotY.

Well, Reggie's not wrong with what he says. It makes sense. Not that things would change if RDR2 was in development while the Switch was available. The system likely can't handle a game like RDR2, or it'd have to take some downgrades to make the fit.

If his reason is because the game was develop before the Switch announcement then Dragon Quest , and other games that got ported by panic button also wouldn't able to come to Switch as well.

But i got his point, he actually cannot say " because Switch unable to run the games ".

This was my original post that made reply to:

"Well Reggie is right, I mean game was like 7 years in development, while completely different thing is that Rockstar wouldnt release RDR2 on Switch in any case.

Saying that, no one expecting RDR2 on Switch in any case, same couldn't be said for GTA V."

They can't run 3D models, so that would make a direct port impossible.

For the Switch however, it should very much be in the realm of possible:

1. Smaller, lower resolution textures (saves massively on memory an install size)

2. Remove most grass-like vegetation (they cost a lot of processing power)

3. Tessellation off, potentially lower polygon models (same effect as above)

4. Simplify lighting and potentially physics; remove any post-processing (again, less processing power. All 3 taken together also ease up alot on the bandwith already)

5. Lower resolution (720x1280 target and 540x960 minimum for undocked, anything over 720p for docked) and target 30fps framerate

All these steps, taken together, should allow the game to run on Switch. The experience would probably be lesser, but it's definitely not impossible to run that game on Switch. 

Is that your way to avoid saying clearly that even if RDR2 started development after Switch was know it wouldn't be made for it anyway? GTA V runs on X360 and PS3 and still got no port for Switch.

Yes, slaughter all the game and it will run... in other news they could make a RDR2 version for PS1/N64 since both can handle 3D.

ANY game can be ported to almost any console. The point is what will be the end result and how much work will it take? Should the result be called the same name as the original source material?

And are you under the agreement that if Switch was already know by the time of early development of RDR2 it would have been launched on it?

I already said very clearly in post that you replied to me, its very clearly and obvious from this: "while completely different thing is that Rockstar wouldnt release RDR2 on Switch in any case".

GTA V still has chance appearing on Switch, chances for RDR2 are almost zero.