mountaindewslave said:
its pure speculation regarding 'undershipping' being a strategy. it doesn't logically make sense. For example, when the Marth Amiibo was hard to find it wasn't hard to find because Nintendo was deliberately trying to build up hype bear in mind that the number of people who would ever buy a Marth amiibo is a tiny like 0.1% of the number of people who purchased ones of like Mario, Link, Metroid the point I'm making is its a bit of a conspiracy theory to suggest that Nintendo is doing this deliberately over and over. The more realistic thing is that they are EXTREMELY safe with releases sometimes. They don't want to make a ton of product and then send the product to stores and have it not sell and end up losing a ton of money on production. They'd rather create a little, test the market, sell out of them, make more. Its just simple business I will agree that they have misjudged things in the past, like the NES Classic, but I am almost certain its more due to their conservative safe strategies rather than some strange plan to build imaginary hype. Trust me in general hype dies down if people can't find something, not vice versa (when you're talking about a long sales period, like a year). They can comfortably ship 10 million physical Pokemon games because they have like 5 generations beforehand of games to base sales on and the safety of production. They didn't have the same thing for Amiibos or the NES Classic. just saying. |
I never really believed Nintendo deliberately undershipped anything in order to generate artificial hype and demand. I just feel like it needs to do a better job at meeting demand, regardless of whether it's a product that has had six generations of data to extract from like Pokemon, or otherwise.
