The gameplay design looks perfectly doable for the Switch given that the likes of Witcher 3 and Dying Light run on it, so they'd just have to tone down the visuals a lot. Start with the base PS4/Xbone versions as a tempate, tune down stuff like textures, shadows, and other settings, make it dynamic 720p with temporal upsampling, etc.

Since this is WB maybe they'll hand it over to Shiver, who did the Switch port of Mortal Kombat 11 for them. Or perhaps they'll contract it out to one of the several porting houses that have pulled miracles out of Switch before like Panic Button, QLOC, or Saber.

It's weird how we have to find out about Switch versions of some games. You'd think publishers would bend over backwards to try release their games on the market leader and proudly announce them upfront for everyone to see. But no, they are hidden in website code, added as a side note or announced at a later date for double dippers...

Same thing used to happen with the later Call of Duty games on the Wii, they'd be announced for PS3/360/PC, then months later a Wii version would be unearthed tucked away out of sight, almost like they didn't want people to know about it.

Back then the concensus was that some publishers just bet against Nintendo and the system's power excuse was often used, then audience difference or lower returns of investment. The bias be it due to previous formed conceptions or relationships of Nintendo or they could also be monetary exclusivity deals, it still shows some bias Nintendo needs to overcome for some third party publishers.

Let's see how they'll treat the Switch 2 or whatever Nintendo decides to release next generation.

Power wise Switch 2 will be in very different situation. Not only will it have DLSS 2/3. But diminshing returns and increasingly scalable engine solutions will mean that there will be very few games that will need to sacrifice their core vision to work on it. If Switch 2 is a slightly more capable PS4.5, that would give us Horizon Forbidden West PS4 version as a a base of what devs will need to work with. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGdymHwDSFI

Witcher 3 already showed what can be done with an extensive port, but I wouldn't exactly call the Switch version pretty. Going forward I think downports will be far shorter to produce, be easier on the eye and not be a blurry mess with paper cutout foliage. This too I think will feed in developers likeliness to promote said ports.

Budget is the number one factor when it comes to porting games to the Switch. It’s not like every studios has access to an infinite workforce that can tackle every wanted versions of a game at once. People also don’t work 365 days a year and deserve vacations just like everyone else. What is actually lazy is you guys calling devs lazy because they don’t make the ports you want. You simply don’t think further than your nose on most occasions and that "argument" reeks of ignorance, a lack of comprehension, and the usual misguided gamer’s self-entitlement.

We shall see.

It should be easier, and maybe we'll see way more ports next-gen, but it is not a technical show stopper as you mention.

Porting the PS3 versions of GTA5 or Persona5 to Switch should not be big problems for their publishers.

Indeed, that is the return of investment angle, and we all know all resources are finite.

Following with the example I mentioned before, there is still no GTA5 version for Switch, meanwhile they just released the PS5/XseX versions. Obviously the returns for these last ones are bigger as it is easier to port; but the potential for GTA5 on Switch, you can just look at how well Fornite/Minecraft have done, their target audience is there.

I think this might be shown or being announced more explicitly when the revision is announced.

This surprises me since I didn't expect any big 2022 games to be ported to it. I thought at this point games would be running poorly on the PS4 and Xbox One to the extent it either wouldn't be feasible or worth the time and effort to do it.