Miyamotoo said:
Of Course there is logic if you had already stock issues, you can potentially again have stock issue (again because potential shortages of Switch parts), and if you actually still don't know how much actually Switch could sell without any stock issues. No I talking about FY 2018. that starts on 1. April 2018. same year that this article is referred to. But maybe they can sell 25m or even hole 30m, we dont know that. But you dont know if they will add costs or there is not benefits, again we dont know reason why maybe they want to produce more units than they can ship, maybe they curently have very good deal for some Switch parts, or point that prevent possible future droughts because possible future Switch components shortages on market, those are all logical resones. |
If there is logic explain it.
They had stock issues and the solution is to overstock? If they have good contracts for the parts they are not going to get into issues to provide their plan.
They will start to produce in 2018 and you expect then to produce at least 20% more than they will sell.
ANY stock that isn't moving is cost incurred, at least study a little the subject before discussing it.
You are trying to make reason of your assumptions, even if they aren't based on anything solid.
So you can't provide anything more than a wish for Nintendo to produce 30M. Show me any case of a company that planned to produce 50% more than sold on a year.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."







