JRPGs are long and have a ton of busy work.

This is more tolerable on a handheld. I'm much more likely to want to grind on a 4 hour flight or passively while watching Baseball or something than I am to want to dedicate the whole TV and my attention to killing monsters in random encounters.

I'm loving Persona 5, but I would take a graphics hit to get it on Switch. 

this sounds like the version you want. Here is a screenshot..

I rather SE focus on making this game the best that they can, instead of dividing resources to cater to those that want to scale down the freaking game on the weakest platform. That's my stance and I'm sticking to it.

To your point, I'm also of the belief that if Switch is to get FF7, they'll work on a Switch engine for it separately. I don't see them holding back the PS4 version because SE traditionally push the envelope for their mainline FF games to the point where many of they commonly end up on lists for best looking games for any given console. And when it comes to a game as important to SE's history as this, I think they want to go all out with this one.

A game with drastically different mechanics? That would be controversial, but very interesting considering many people seem to want a more traditional battle system.
That could also be a very clever way to work around hardware differences. I like the idea.

How does Pokemon say otherwise? I said that the mobile market is strong and that Nintendo's presence on it doesn't diminish it. That Pokemon Go boosted sales for a 3DS game doesn't mean that Pokemon Go's presence on smartphones had a deterimental effect for the mobile gaming market. Even if we're talking about smartphones alone. And we're not. 3DS is counted among mobile games.

You say flawed but you effectively missed the point. I did not claim that there's not a single console or console level game on portable systems. I said that this is a very common practice for the big publishers. And the examples of the opposite are the rare exception rather than the rule.
Another thing you missed when citing those particular examples is that I was talking about cost. Lower budget = lower cost, in case that wasn't clear.
It costs Square Enix significantly less money to get Kingdom Hearts Dream Drop Distance running at 25 frames per second on a 800×240 pixels screen, with lower texture details, shorter draw distance, fewer particle effects, only one main character on screen during battle instead of three, etc, than it does to get a Kingdom Hearts game up to par on a home console. That was my point. Same goes for Resident Evil Revelations (which I mentioned myself) vs Resident Evil 5, etc. And those two games were specifically designed with 3DS in mind from the ground up, so they have no relevance to a game like Final Fantasy VII R, which is designed for PS4 in mind from the start. The takeaway from that would be that they'd make a different 3DS oriented FF game instead for 3DS.
Street Fighter IV is a more proper example. They effectively cut out the features that the arcade and console versions had, and made it look and function very similarly. But a fighting game match is a more controlled scenario than what appears in an action rpg. And much more importantly, one that traditionally focuses on graphical fidelity. Which leads me to the comment you made below:

First you somehow got from my post that I didn't think lower budget 3DS-esque games would find their way to Switch when that's exactly what I was talking about. Then you say that Pokemon "says otherwise", in response to me saying that the mobile market is strong in Japan, and that Nintendo contributes to that. Yeah, Pokemon Go contributed to mobile gaming popularity, even if it also contributed to 3DS Pokemon sales as well, which is also mobile gaming. I included 3DS in the discussion from the start.
Now you're reading "FF7 is SE's most demanding game" when I said "it's looking like SE's most demanding game yet". There's a difference. For the former, I do need to back it up with a source. For the latter, I don't. I need only point out why it appears that way.

Let's start with the obvious. For every flagship 3D Final Fantasy game, Square move forward and not backwards. Not only do they outdo themselves, but they set the bar even higher than that and often outdo the competition. Because of that ambition their games are commonly spotted on lists for best looking titles on a system. But that aside, each new flagship FF entry advances forward, not backwards. That's because they learn to work with the hardware more properly as time progresses. If you're one of those who can't already tell the massive difference between Dragon Quest XI and Final Fantasy 7 just in terms of image quality, I can't tell you why the sky is blue. But if you can, but you're focusing more on the things we haven't seen yet, then I can understand that argument. However, open world does not automatically mean more demanding than than what we've seen in Midgar alone. Midgar in particular is a very high tech very detailed city. It depends on what's going on on the screen.

An open field with simple foilage textures for grass and trees is not as demanding as countless moving parts in a futuristic high tech are, high detailed textures, reflecting neon lights and particle effects going off in an enclosed area. But FF7 will surely be open world as well. If not in the first Midgar portion of the game, then in Episode 2 and on. We have no reason to assume otherwise after knowing what the original game is like after you leave Midgar, and how they designed Final Fantasy XV. They said they wanted to include everything from the original. That will surely include soaring the skies with Highwind, and running away from the Midgar Wyrm on a chocobo out in the open fields.

I'm not aware that the announcement was made prematurely. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a valid point to make that the NX version wasn't confirmed until much later. That's not downplaying. That's an important fact that carried many implications with it. Would it come out on Switch? Were they waiting for something in particular befor making up their minds? Was it money from Nintendo? Or did they need to know more about the specs? People's reception to the Switch reveal? Etc. We still don't know. We also don't know why they haven't shown the Switch version yet or announced the release date. It could be that Nintendo want to save that for E3, or that the game isn't far enough into development to show a stable running version that would match the PS4/3DS trailers. But we can only speculate.

Yes, I am a random person. Why should I keep that in mind? I didn't tell you to put value into my prediction either, because I didn't elaborate on why I reached that conclusion. I merely gave you an example that people also had the opposite opinion. What I am saying is that you shouldn't put too much value into random people's sales predictions unless they demonstrate their reasoning in a clear and concise way. But that's rarely ever how people post their sales predictions online. It's more like "I think it'll sell more than WiiU, but less than 3DS." Because, reasons.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1363973

Apparently this guy has gotten some stuff right before.

IF true can we also get the originial FF7 (Android port?) too. At least my Cloud Amiibo will get some work now, perhaps S-E could release Amiibo for other characters too (Sephiroth, Barrett, Tifa, Aeries). 

That's what I've been saying all along.

I'm not sure how "I'm counting 3DS as part of the mobile markets" is so unclear to you.
At least after I've clarified it for you several times. My argument all along was that the market for portable games, whether on smartphones or 3DS is strong.

This is the discussion in a nutshell:

Me: Lower budget games that commonly appeared on 3DS will end up on Switch.
You: If you don't think these lower budget games are coming to Switch, you're kidding yourself.
Me: No, I said they would.

Me: The home console market is strong.
You: GTAV says otherwise. Because it's selling really well and got people to buy consoles.
Me: I didn't say it was doing badly.

Because you don't take time to read properly, even after multiple attemps at explaining it to you, I'll try to explain one more time to sum it up fort you.

I said that publishers will probably be cautiously optimistic about Switch's future. To which you replied that they can't afford to be on the wall about this, citing the weak home console market in Japan. To which I replied that if developers need to make money in the meantime, and asside from their home console business, there is the mobile market, which is strong in Japan. I mentioned 3DS as an example of the healthy mobile market, and that even Switch would be relevant hear at the very least when it comes to the lower budget titles that publishers like to develop for the portable systems.

At this point you seemed to get triggered by the mere mention of "mobile" because of previous discussions you've been in to the point where you stopped reading my posts on the subject properly.

After I said that lower budget games like the ones that commonly appear on 3DS would find their way to Switch, you told me I'm kidding myself if I do not think they will not end up on Switch.
After I said that the mobile market is strong because of smartphones, 3DS and even Switch, you told me I'm wrong, because the market for 3DS is strong.

Getting confused once or maybe twice I get. But three times? When I even specifically say I'm counting the 3DS as part of the the strong mobile market in Japan? I don't know how you got that wrong.
And even if we're only talking about the smartphone section of mobile gaming, I didn't say anything about it or anything else affecting the 3DS negatively.
That was all in your head. That's a different discussion to have, and not particularly relevant to the point I was making.

If you didn't miss the point then you'll have to explain why you gave lower budget games as counter examples to the claim that developers like to release lower budget games on portable devices. (Lower as in lower than their console counterparts.)
How did I miss the point of 3DS not being able to run console level games while Switch can, when I specifically acknowledged it and mentioned that Vita is a better example for that very reason? Wii and WiiU are even more capable of running current gen console ports, and yet they got very few. What did developers do instead on the super popular Wii? They developed new games specifically designed for Wii, while entries in popular franchises majorly appeared on PS3/360 instead. WiiU they mostly just ignored alltogether. And Switch is reportedly not a lot more powerful than WiiU.

Also, we haven't seen Switch run a single non-indie Playstation 4 game yet that's not also on PS3. Dragon Quest XI, which they still haven't shown us, may be the first. But what we're specifically interested in are games that don't use simple Nintendo-style textures, which DQXI happens to do. Because FF7 is not that kind of game. So just how well Switch can run games like that remains to be seen.

Final Fantasy XII is arguably an exception to this. But the tradeoff was that enemies appeared on screen, in larger explorable areas, which was a huge change from the invisible random encounters of the past. I would say that this very much did push the envelope visually for a 3D Jrpg at the time. Every modern FF game since have had enemies-on-screen in some form.

And I wasn't only assuming things about FF7. That was in reply to you suggesting that things you "haven't seen" in FF7 may not be in it. That's also assuming things. Assuming that DQXI is open world, and FF7 is not, then it would be relevant to bring it into the discussion. Not before that.

About the "episodic nature" let's not call it that because that's not the term SE originally used. They said "multi game series", and compared it to the Final Fantasy XIII series. But their English presss release took liberties with the translation, and because of that people got confused and associated that term with games like the Telltale game series.

Regardless, having it be a multi game series should not have any particular impact on overall game performance. The reason you couldn't access most of Midgar on Disc 2 and 3 of the original was due to data volume. That may be why they do the same thing in the remake. It could also be related to game performance though, if they for example make significant changes to the game system in between games, which for whatever reason do not blend well with the Midgar section of the game. But it's also possible that if the first game is only Midgar, it could be more demanding on the hardware than even a potential open world section in Game 2. Whether that's because of more poor optimization, or because the detaiuls of Midgar are just that demanding.
However, I can't imagine how this would be used to make a game run more properly on hardware that struggles to run any particular section of the game.

Anyway, while it is a very safe assumption that FF 7's world map will be open world, I also pointed out that it's not important to my point if against all odds it isn't. You can certainly design busy enclosed spaces that are more taxing on the hardware than empty open areas.