How?

You take one example of a AAA game and then go on and claim it's just as easy and cheap for every other game. That is factually wrong.

Except I never made that claim.

Then why are you using Doom, which is clearly made with scalability in mind, as an example for a AAA port on Switch which is obviously not like Doom and as such much harder to port?

Do you agree that a game that cost more to port might have more trouble to turn a profit and as such might not be considered to be ported at all?

Because Doom and COD are very similar in that they both target 60fps on PS4 and Xbox One and focus on relatively restricted play areas without much in the way of extravagant physics or other problematic technical features. Their engines even share the same roots.

So you're saying they're very much different and should be evaluated as different products. Good to know. How well a game runs on a given platform is absolutely no indication of portability btw. There is a lot more to making a AAA game than taking an engine and plopping in some assets.

If you want to complain then complain that not every developer uses the same unified engine and certainly no extensions that might cause problems on different hardware platforms. Or maybe complain to the company who decided to make it deliberately hard to port to their console compared to all other platforms.

Its possible Activision did the Wii ports with higher expectations. I mean CoD3 was apparently the first and best selling. Wii was essentially the only platform where CoD sales decreased during that period you mentioned, but I could be wrong.

Its evident porting games PS4 to Switch is big endeavor compared to PS4 to X1. And I'm sure that's always considered when doing anything for Switch. Frankly, some ports to Switch are quite poor and I'm guessing it requires more resources/money/effort for a good Switch port.

Skyrim and FIFA did do exceptionally well on Switch, that support will likely continue to some degree. Maybe Bethesda's priority should be bringing Fallout games to Switch as opposed to more id shooter. FIFA is among the most popular IPs, but the Switch port is using the 7th gen engine and so will the next game it seems. Hence, EA isn't putting a big effort in the Switch port yet.

 You talk as if this game won’t make 10’s of billions of dollars without Switch. It’s got nothing to do with talent. Why spend the effort when it’s not going to make or break them, because 1) it doesn’t need Switch to sell, and 2) it’s not going to sell very well on Switch anyways. Even with Bethesda’s game having “good” sales numbers on Switch, there has yet to be any western AAA third party title that has sold that well on Switch that the developer just needs it. 

Companies will always try and make as much off a product as possible. I doubt many of them say, "welp, we've made enough of this other platform, so let's not even bother releasing it on that one."

I saw the vid. It's not actually as bad as you might think. He only gets asked about a Switch port once. He laughs fairly awkwardly for a while but asking why he laughed would only be conjecture. My guess would be either he's not allowed to talk about it, or the decision is nothing to do with him, or he gets asked about a Switch port all the time. Or, even it may have been some sort of in joke between the 2 of them. Either way, it's at most mildly disrespectful if i'm honest. Also, yeah i'm quite surprised there hasn't been any COD representation on Switch yet at all. I would expect some sort of remaster/collection of 1 of the older titles at least. They could use it as a measuring stick as to whether future COD titles would be feasible if they thought the market had been shown to be there.

Is it a matter of microtransactions? Very few games on Nintendo platforms have the same microtransaction structures big companies like to add to big games nowadays. I think only FIFA and NBA2k18 have them. Considering that it is sadly their main source of income, does Nintendo have barriers for it?