What exactly we thought? From start was obvious and even Miyamoto stated that Switch AAA port can be done in less than one year, and thats correct, this game is done in around 9 months. Using Dragon Quest XI like example of anything is totally wrong, its very clear that when we talk about that port comes to bad Square Enix planing and timing than anything else, that game is exception not rule. Switch has very similar technology to PS4/XB1 not to PS3/360, for devs, in this case they probably ported XB1/PS4 version of game not PS3/360.

Maybe it was very easy, that again depends how big team was, its not same if you have team of 10-20 people and when you have team of 100+ people, and this game has huge amont of content. New games are done buy hole teams that usualy have 100+ people, late ports are done buy much smaller teams, that why new games are usualy done in 2-3 years buy 100+ people teams while ports are done in less than one year buy much smaller teams, and around 9 months is definitely around expected time for AAA game port.

There is huge difference between slightly and on pair, Switch in docked mode is around 3x stronger than PS3/360. And no, Switch is not on same gen graphic with Wii U espacily with PS3 and 360, it's somewhere between them and XB1/PS4. Fifa 18 for Switch is good example of this, not only that runs at 1080p compared to 720p on PS3/360, but also has higher quality effects, shaders, lighting, higher level of details, resolution textures, normal mapping, post-processing, depth of field...like DF stated, its mix of old and new. I mean even Doom and Wolfenstein 2 examples show us this, Switch versions have almost all effects and graphics features like PS4/XB1 while resolution and frame rate were cutback.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-fifa-18-switch-face-off

You are right, my math was off. for a game like this 300k sales on Switch is easy thing and the profit is certainly enough to justify the cost (since they used third party to do most of the port instead of themselves so they didn't had much cost of opportunity).

Yep, 2M and 9 months isn't super easy and cheap, but for a game that can sell as much as Diablo it is justifiable investment.

I was already corrected in the math, yes was totally wrong.

It certainly matters, they could use a similar budget to do something that would generate much more profit. Because if by 30% more cost to do the port on PS4 it sells 3x more (not saying it's the case) they may look to make another investment instead of other ports to Switch in the future.

Business isn't just about breaking even.

There is the thing, resources are always limited, that is the basic premise of economy. Even if you count as resource only the people overseeing the port.

But as I said in a post above, considering 100-150k to break even the port, it selling over 300k (it is possible to have 500k) it is probably very justifiable to make the port. Still do you agree that for other games and companies with more limited budgets it may not be made?

If I were a dev deciding between a Switch or Pro port, I would probably choose Switch most of the times as that would likely have more chances of added profits. I would say just some specific genres/titles would be bad investment to choose Switch over Pro.

And yep you are right, some ports aren't done because of the ROI not being there. Sure sometimes devs/pubs make a bad call, as it seems like that title would do good numbers on Switch with the port not being hard or taking to much of the original, but I think that is the smaller portion of cases. And you are also right that Switch is getting a healthy quantity of ports on what is feasible on the system without major redoing of the game and also shall make some other titles start with Switch already in mind (which may impact the PS4/X1/Pro/X versions unfortunately) and make the Switch version very competent.

A porting team wouldn't be a full-time team of 30 people for a year =P

Maybe 3 or 4 dedicated/full-time people.

It would likely be one artist and 2-3 three engineers; producers (to tell them they're doing it wrong), additional artist/coder assets, QA, and directors would all be part-time.

It's been taking 7th gen ports and enhancing them.
But it's also been taking 8th gen ports and downgrading them, games that couldn't run on the 7th gen due to the hardware feature set being insufficient, like Doom and Wolfenstein.
So I most certainly stand by my last statement.

Performance wise... And I have been saying it since I knew the device was Tegra powered, it's performance sits between the 7th and 8th gen consoles with 8th gen hardware/capabilities.

And sensitive? Hardly. Being as accurate as possible? Most certainly.
The "matter of language" is certainly important so that statements don't get misconstrued.

Eh, you need to be realistic, 3-4 people could port some Indie game, but full AAA game, hardly, for such a projects teams are probably around 10-30 people.

So you have any source that this game was ported by 4 people or less?

Or are you saying that it perhaps used up to 30 people for 9 months then it was terribly hard or not well done?

If ports needed 4 people for 1 year that would make porting inconsequential and all 3rd party that doesn't have contracts for exclusivity should show in all systems. But that isn't what is happening.

Fifa are not using the same graphic engine with Fifa 2018 on PS4 and Xbox One , Doom and Wolfstain is different case even my potato PC from 2009 taht is equal to PS3 and Xbox 360can still play the games with graphical downgrade.