A more interesting comparison would be attach rate. Anyone care to do that math and post it here?

PS4: ~11%
XOne: ~8%
NS: ~3%

It is not nearly as dramatic when you look at it that way.  If the others are in line with expectations, then EA can't be too surprised by Switch sales.  A system with a small install base, a version with fewer features, and no history with the console family is obviously going to lead to a lot fewer sales. 

Don't get me wrong, it still doesn't look good.  But, when you look at it from this angle, it doesn't seem so terrible.  

I don't see how attach rate matters so much, higher install bases tend to have worst attach rates anyway, and this isn't even the case 

Then you would listen to me and realise EA can't ship more than stores are willing to stock. It's perfectly understandable that retailers are wary because FIFA has never sold well on Nintendo systems. And it isn't even completely sold out as far as I know. Really not sure why you'd have to go all Hollywood on this. No reasonable man would think EA self-sabotaging is the most likely explanation. But sure, it sounds more interesting and it would be cool to believe this was the case.

Of course, EA and Nintendo don't gel, and EA is not doing anything more than they think needs to be done.

In response to your first sentence I said, "even if that were true (it isn't), 9 days to restock? Where is the wise business practice in that? 9 days to restock an online retailer?" That is proof that I am reading your responses, being reasonable, and responding. It is OK though because that point severely damages your point. It should not take 9 days to restock and we both know that. Not on a game that only sold 8,000 units.

You spent more time attacking me than attempting to explain how it makes business sense to take 9 days to restock a game of such low sales to begin with. And I asked you to explain it with an example of another title that sold just as poorly and its stock situation. You failed to do anything of the sort. You can attack me about it... you can say anything you want. But as far as the topical conversation goes, you have provided nothing to progress the conversation or persuade me. And in this conversation, I am now looking to be persuaded.

If they were doing it only out of obligation and have no term to make it a good port they wouldn't do a special engine and take all the time needed, they could make a very shitty game.

Everyone gave you good points that you ignored and just said that only self-sabotage made sense.

And you try to put all the burden of reposition on EA, have you thought about the possibility that Amazon themselves made the initial order and scheduled the second order? Even more that even if for you 9 days seems like too much depending from where the stock is coming from and how much they are willing to pay on transport cost 1 week travel isn't much? The consoles for example take about 1 month or 2 to go from OEM to shelves and during PS4 launch they had to send by airplane to have a 1 week time?

But you are free to think that EA is just interested in sabotaging their game even if it makes zero sense in business world. After all, all companies want Nintendo to die right? And Sony gone and bought MHW to not appear only on Switch to try to kill Nintendo as well right?

This thread has over 300 replies? Wow!

This forum never disappoints me. Where else do you get that indescribable feeling that the videogames industry is some holy war that needs to be fought by internet soldiers?

It's no different to football fans arguing about their football teams. It's just human nature to fight like this.