Nuvendil pretty much explained why that would still be a problem.

It's looks a lot better than the original

Am sure they probably did some imporvements but at the same time the switch is more powerful than both the ps3 and 360. Am not saying is could run it at 60fps 1080 but am sure it could run it in a decent and enjoyable way 

Newer tech yes, more ram yes. On a GFlop-GFflop level on par. 400+GF for PS3 and 390 something for switch when docked. yes I know GF arent everything but the switch isnt a beast by any means.

Recently had someone point out that Dragon Quest Heroes is a online only game that works with Square's own internet service not Nintendo's. So I take back my comment.

Destiny 2, say you either A: don't think your game will sell, B: that you are too late in devel to make a port, or C: that you don't want to do it.

Wrong.  The PS3 and 360 perform at less than 250 GLFOPs (~230 and 240 respectively).  The Switch outputs at about ~400 in the dock and 200 in handheld.  However, real world performance is above PS3 and 360 in both cases due to the additional RAM and other superior tech both hardware and software wise (and also due to he Switch screen being 720p and its smaller size allowing for more variation in resolution and image quality solutions).  In real world performance output, the Switch is closer to the middle between Xbox 360 and Xbox One in the dock again due to the tech.

First, just because Square did something doesn't mean the reason given isn't rational.  Those are not mutually exclusive realities.  Just because a thing can be done or indeed has been done doesn't mean it SHOULD be done.

Second, if I recall correctly DQ Heroes also has a singleplayer mode with no online, right?  If so, not a good comparison.

A better one would have been the MMO DQX

And yet people mostly play them tethered to their phones when on the go. I know not everyone has huge data contracts (I certainly don't) but let's not pretend that this is a huge problem either.

Yes. I know. See above.

This, basically.

Look, they clearly never even factored in a Switch version and that has nothing to do with the Switches portblility and all to do with Nintendos percieved/real demographic and the fact that when Destiny 2 started developement the Switch was barely on the horizon, let alone the success it's turning out to be.

Just like Destiny was never going to come to the wiiU even though it's about as portable as the other consoles. They think their audience for this is on Ps4 and Xone (and they are likely right), two consoles that are (unlike the wiiU) selling phenomenal and decent respectively. They got the original destiny, they got the marketing deals and they got the established audience.

The sales would probably not be worth the considerable struggle to make a port run smoothly and he could have just said that. That was the point of my original comment.

... if they had NDAs....you wouln't hear about them.... becasuse that's the purpose of NDAs.

I get that, and I don't find that acceptable. The issue is that you can't play it if there's no internet, which more often than not, that'll be available. Just because it can't be played all the time, doesn't mean it should be skipped entirely. But alas, if that's their reason, then... okay then.