PS3/360 had DX9 era GPUs and multi-core, multi-threaded 3GHz CPUs versus a DX7 era GPU and single core/single threaded 729MHz CPU on Wii, also 88MB of RAM vs just under 500MB. Switch's GPU is actually more modern than PS4/Xbone, it's CPU is also multicore just with less cores at not to dissimilar a speed, RAM is much closer at 3GB vs 5GB. The gap is objectively much smaller this time around.
Do you have any evidence that COD on Wii didn't make money? Cos the actual evidence, the fact they brought over 5 of them, 4 of which sold over a million, points to them being worthwhile.
For someone who claims to own a Switch you come across an awful lot like someone who hates Nintendo and wants to see them fail.
Again, just because two pieces of hardware are closer in performance doesn't mean it is easier to port a game between those two pieces of hardware. You're just assuming it's easier because you can't think of a reason why it wouldn't be. There are several factors you're completely ignoring or are unaware of.
No I don't have any evidence that COD made enough money for the decision makers at Activision were pleased with the sales and satisfied with the investment. Do you have any evidence they were besides "well they kept making them" as if its that simple? And again, you're pretending the Wii U didn't exist. How did the two COD Wii U games sell?
"I can't believe this guy owns a Switch and doesn't love it like I do! I bet he's lying and he's actually a hater!"
lol. You know your arguments don't have much value when you feel the need to resort to such bullshit as that. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.