Support NeoGAF

[Servbot24]

Customers are generally more likely to make impulse purchases when stock is limited.

Customers are more likely to make purchases when it is possible to make a purchase.

 

[oti]

Maybe, maybe not but the company behind the product might. Or the store selling it.

Ever seen a store trying to generate hype by having lines for Android phones before the Galaxy S line took off? Some looked really pathetic, nothing like the lines for iPhones.

But they tried. I really doubt it was real supply issues.

Nintendo isn't "a store". It's a multinational cooperation and its first goal is to create value for their shareholders. "Marketing buzz" doesn't generate value. Sales do. I get what you're saying but this is a message board argument, not a real world argument.

 

[Kyzer]

Anyone claiming nintendo does this on purpose has no idea how this stuff works. You cant put out the wii u, fail miserably, and then pump out millions of your next product anyways, and upper management is judged by metrics that revolve​ around sales volume. Artificial stock shortages loses nintendo money because they are not selling product which is a loss of revenue while scalpers make even more margin than nintendo would have and customers get pissed. Its a lose for everyone. Not to mention how stupid it is to think that the average consumer is even keeping up with hardware sales and stock shortages, they dont give a fuck. Theyre not gamers who are having anxiety at the thought of missing out on a system launch

Customers are generally more likely to make impulse purchases when stock is limited.

How the fuck do they even buy it if theres no stock? Makes no sense

 

[SweetJohnnyCage]

BOTW figure-locked dlc has made finding certain amiibo impossible. As a result, reseller prices are shooting through the roof. $50+ for a Smash Link amiibo is insane.

A similar thing is happening with the Switch itself. The console is marked up and selling quite successfully on eBay.

What benefit does Nintendo get from this? Sure, the products are in-demand, but without enough supply to meet said demand, the only ones profiting are the scalpers.

Many have claimed artificial scarcity, especially when it comes to amiibo/NES Classic/Etc. Am I missing something here, or is it just a case of actually not being able to keep up with demand?

They're not selling for that much money, tbh. I just watched a gray one end at $405. After paying tax at retail, that's less than a $70 profit. Compare that to the Wii where I was able to sell them in the parking lot for $500-$600 5 minutes after buying them and you can see that the demand really isn't THAT high.

EDIT:

For posterity, I watched an auction for a Neon Switch. $415, $5 more than the gray.

 

[darkstar0155]

Were you alive for the Wii?

I know I was... I remember them selling more per month than any other console in history for almost 2 years.

But I guess they can just press a magic button and suddenly output doubles immediately, and there are no consequences if that demand then slows down and they just invested millions in increasing production.

Seriously, the Wii is like the worst example anyone could ever use for this argument.

 

[darkstar0155]

Not only is that form pretty hard to interpret, it says sales, not shipped. When I worked at Gamestop in the companies highest selling region at the time and restocks of Wii's were months apart and racked up to 2 per store at most.

No other console had such supply issues even when selling out. So at that point the only thing that makes sense in Nintendo is constraining somewhere. And they are. The reason is not limited to "hype" though, it's multifaceted. But it is a decision that they make to risk their console being hard for consumers to get rather than having a major production investment and units sitting around waiting to move.

It's business. And while MS and Sony take the big production investment strategy, Nintendo takes the console unavailable strategy. Either strategy can work or backfire due to a number of factors. It's just a choice the company has to take a risk on.

another explanation could you know, be that the Wii was in such high demand everywhere that they had to spread out their production everywhere.

Seriously, this argument would only be valid if the production/sales numbers were small. The Wii literally sold more than any other console ever in its first 2+ years.

You say "no other console had such supply issues".. no other console ever sold as much as quick as it did either.

 

[LegendofLex]

Not only is that form pretty hard to interpret, it says sales, not shipped.

I don't see how much more straightforward you can get than a matrix that shows you the numbers for each year, broken down by region.

"Sales" means sales to retailers, not sell-through to consumers. In the world where every unit sells out, there's a 1:1 correlation between sales and shipments anyway.

If sales are going up, that means shipments are going up. And that means the company is producing more units to try to keep up with demand, not producing less to generate scarcity.

It's not like this was a console that sold normal unit numbers for Nintendo but was still really hard to find because they just never shipped very many. It's a console that sold unheard of numbers for Nintendo and Nintendo steadily increased the shipments until sellouts ended.

 

[ckaneo]

Artificial demand is a real thing, BUT Nintendo's lack of hardware appears to be more conservative shipping than anything else.

The wii took off like something they didn't expect, the wii u flopped and they had to buy back more copies, and they really couldn't know if The NES classic and Switch would be successful. Notice we got the number of Switches made long before it went on sale.

I think it's better to assume incompetence and conservative shipping.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

No they aren't. Look at the Animal Crossing Amiibo line

Customers have to want the product first. Maybe slashing available quantities would have helped demand, but I think some people are vastly overestimating the efficacy of artificial scarcity. I think the conventional wisdom is that -- unless the saleable window is very small -- you'd rather ship not enough product than too much as you can always sell more product later, but unsold inventory that needs to be liquidated can be disastrous. But that doesn't mean that massively under-shipping is always a smart play. It can be, but there's got to be a way for them to capitalize on this demand for it to make sense.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

http://www.highsnobiety.com/2015/06/09/sneaker-resell-market/

Nike has been doing this shit for years. It's not imaginary, limited supply drives up demand and creates hype for future releases.

Of course, Nike is good enough with their supply chain to *just* barely reach demand, so they rarely have the secondhand market to worry about cannibalizing sales. A scalper making a 100% profit is the equivalent of a lost sale after all.

 

[schuelma]

The better question is what do companies have to lose by oversupply. See: Nintendo 4 years ago.

 

[Hcoregamer00]

This thread is infuriating because it shows the gulf in understanding between gamers and mass production of products.

Console production is like any mass produced product, before the first console is made, there is a very expensive initial investment in machinery for the factory that is laid out in contracts (ex: Produce 300,000 widgets a month). No company wants an excess of stock because of warehousing costs, and because efficiencies in production cannot be made (ex: a machine can create 10 widgets a minute instead of 8 once everything is running at full speed). Likewise an increase in production is very expensive since it requires expensive investment in additional equipment and the hiring of new employees to work in the factory.

There is a reason why companies are very hesitant to ramp up production even when demand clearly outstrips supply, because misreading the market leads to huge losses, and factories themselves inherently are extremely expensive and slower to adapt because of gigantic capital investment.

 

[Jest Chillin]

It was selling more units than hardware that preceded it for years. I think people aren't thinking things through completely when they make the argument that it's all supply constraint. I mean, sure, if they just went crazy and said "flood the market with as much hardware as the factories can produce as quickly as possible to meet the backlog of demand," it's possible that this might have had a detrimental impact on the mystique of the console. But there's also this crazy notion that the key to success is just to deliberately undership by a wide margin to manufacture demand.

If they were shipping two and three units at a time so as to keep up the illusion of scarcity, they wouldn't have sold the numbers they did. Overshipping something like this is bad, but that doesn't automatically mean that intentionally producing too little quantity is some magic bullet to success.

The constraint isn't in shipping, it's in manufacuturing and it's caused by intentionally having more conservative launch production. It's done to protect from losses but the case of the Wii it worked two fold. By the time the Wii poplarity spiked production couldn't keep up with demand because they had no standing inventory to ease the transition to ramped production.

I'm not saying it's tin foil hat plotting but rather a strategy implemented to limit loss having also happened to increase demand creating the Wii sales outlier.

So you didn't like the Wii, therefore it only sold because people were tricked into buying it. Of course.

It's only been pointed out about a billion times, but I'll re-iterate the actual facts: Nintendo shipped more Wiis out to retail than any console in history. It was literally the fastest selling console ever, for about its first 3 years. Nintendo didn't "limit supply". They literally supplied more units than had ever been done before.

I'll say again: there has to be actual demand for a product for "artificial demand" to make any meaningful contribution. We're talking about products that sell millions here, not some shopping channel piece of garbage marketed to a tiny shopaholic slice of the populace.

And to answer your question: Wii Sports was a fun game that really took off. That's what sold the Wii. People weren't playing it because they felt special for finding one.

No need to take a condescending tone or try to make this personal. I was talking about the Wii objectively. It was a weak system compared to It's gens compatriots and the vast majority of the software was poor. The consumer base that they pulled in are not the type to make a big purchase for one item like that.

You should probably read more of my posts in this thread before going off on a tangent.

 

[inpHilltr8r]

Nike has been doing this shit for years.

Fashion industry turns over product lines at an incredible rate. Consumer electronics less so.

 

[Peltz]

The problem probably comes from their production mentality rather than creating artificial demand. They are very conservative in making sure they make a profit and not having too much stock sitting on the shelf (cash flow and such). It's a way they can compete with other businesses without having all the expensive structure of larger companies (like Apple, Sony, and Microsoft). Sure, they can underproduce on products like the Wii, NES Classic and amiibo, but systems like Wii U and Virtual Boy didn't bankrupt them.

Remember, before the Wii, the Gamecube sold way under expectations. amiibo and NES Classic were side products testing the waters.

And before that, (just to add to your point) it was impossible to find a Gameboy Color with a copy of Pokemon Red or Blue for months. Nintendo knew they had a hit on their hands but it was still hard for them to produce enough units to meet demand in 98-99. It's just the way they operate.

 

[horkrux]

How the fuck do they even buy it if theres no stock? Makes no sense

You buy when it's back in stock, or you make damn sure you're among the first to get it and leave this problem to others. If it was widely available or you knew it was gonna be, you might have waited instead and not have bought it at all until much later.

 

[Version 3.0]

No need to take a condescending tone or try to make this personal. I was talking about the Wii objectively. It was a weak system compared to It's gens compatriots and the vast majority of the software was poor. The consumer base that they pulled in are not the type to make a big purchase for one item like that.

You should probably read more of my posts in this thread before going off on a tangent.

What tangent? I replied on point, to what you posted? And no, it's not personal. Like the Wii, or not, whatever. I have mixed feelings about it myself. I was only stating facts. There was no "limiting supply" or "artificial demand" going on. We have the data to prove it, and it's been discussed to death. It sure would be nice if the people in the wrong would learn something.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

"Sold out, just look how popular it is!"

 

[eme]

Yes. Care to elaborate more on your point or are you going to just drive by post?

I was countering your comment saying that no one has had interest in their stuff until now. The Wii disagrees with you, not too much of a driveby.

 

[eme]

I know I was... I remember them selling more per month than any other console in history for almost 2 years.

But I guess they can just press a magic button and suddenly output doubles immediately, and there are no consequences if that demand then slows down and they just invested millions in increasing production.

Seriously, the Wii is like the worst example anyone could ever use for this argument.

I didn't just post "was anyone here for the Wii?"

I replied to someone who said no one had interest in Nintendo products until now, and what I said is a very sound logic against that...

 

[Jest Chillin]

I don't see how much more straightforward you can get than a matrix that shows you the numbers for each year, broken down by region.

"Sales" means sales to retailers, not sell-through to consumers. In the world where every unit sells out, there's a 1:1 correlation between sales and shipments anyway.

If sales are going up, that means shipments are going up. And that means the company is producing more units to try to keep up with demand, not producing less to generate scarcity.

It's not like this was a console that sold normal unit numbers for Nintendo but was still really hard to find because they just never shipped very many. It's a console that sold unheard of numbers for Nintendo and Nintendo steadily increased the shipments until sellouts ended.

Sales to Retailers do not mean those units arrive that month.

There is a time delay to ALL of this stuff. Logistics of massive numbers of units is time costly.

Low initial production investment = low launch stock. Low launch stock = little restock available. Increased production is limited by low intial production investment and little standing restock = a trickle of supply upon reorder.

So even when Nintendo is selling massive numbers to Retailers, it's not enough to stock the stores effectively and the units continue to be sold out which had the side effect of continuing the hype.

400k units to 20k locations = 20 units per store right? But those 400k are not made immediately, do not come immediately, and aren't in one massive shipment.

 

[darkstar0155]

.....By the time the Wii poplarity spiked production couldn't keep up with demand because they had no standing inventory to ease the transition to ramped production.

what? Wii demand/popularity was high from the very get go and remained that way for over two years.

 

[Jack The Nipper]

Isn't Hasbro a good example of it not just being Nintendo? How quick were they able to respond to the demand for Rey figures? Not quickly at all.

I actually don't know about new Hasbro, just when I was around collecting (which I assume had a bigger sales rate also on their line anyways) but they obviously were able to keep everyone supplied when they did. Nintendo never changed when they could have on amiibos at times.

ha... as a star wars figure collector.. your post isn't exactly accurate. Take any given figure series (say 3.75"), and outside of a fresh stock refresh, since I've been collecting as an adult (going back to the orange card relaunch in 95 or so), Star Wars figures have never been pouring off the shelf. There are SPACES for them.. and after enough weighted refreshes there are usually 8-9 pegs filled with the high volume case characters (like Jar Jar from Ep1 series 1). but that is just the nature of collectibles sold in weighted cases.. when you get 1.6x jar jar figures per an average of every other figure in the case, and people aren't buying those ones, they will fill up the pegs after enough refreshes. Yet Darth Maul would be gone almost as soon as being pulled from the case.

but more often than not.. with star wars (or most successful figures) the case is you see like 5-6 pegs filled randomly with over-produced/low-selling figures from the cases.. and everything with actual demand empty.

and how hasbro survives.. is in a case of 12 figures.. the weighted figure might be like 4.. with the remaining 8 going to like 5-6 figures. Hasbro got paid for all 12 figures.. and the store sold 9 figures (counting 3 unsold weighted figures).. after 5 refreshes there are 15 peg warmers.. but the store still sold 45 figures. which is easy profit.

I am replying to you because I started collecting around the same time and got up to around 800 or so. I feel like the peak of these series as far as sells and spacing allotments was around the first green card era (I may be off but just a gut feeling) Orange card was still fresh and Episode one was def. a dud (also the best time to be into these imo) As when you start mixing ep 1 etc it starts to go down hill for me. I barely even know what they have made the last 5 years for sure.

I have not collected them heavily in like 7 years and I'm not sure if I missed much. I figure it will always be ok if I get back into it and just buy sets anyways.

I was just saying that they were able to product them even when they weren't selling. I don't think producing them after a known sell is something that would be hard is all. A simple argument.

You know... I use to get these things at my local wal mart for buy one get one free. Can you even imagine and the price was already like sub 3.00 or something!

 

[Cepheus]

Wait, the old Smash Bros Link amiibos work with Breath of the Wild? If I had known that before, I would have brought mine back to university with me along with my Switch. :/

I guess Nintendo are scared of not selling all their stock, so they'd rather not put out as much to be on the safe side.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Artificial constraint isn't aimed at the "regular consumer" but at the lower-than-casual consumer i.e. what happened with the Wii.

There were more Wiis available than any near-launch home console ever. Even more demand, though.

Were you alive for the Wii?

They had the biggest launch ever, and for several years continued increasing rates of production. Things were so scarce, they ended up with a December where Wii sold more in the US than Wii U sold worldwide in most of its years.

Not only is that form pretty hard to interpret, it says sales, not shipped.

We had pretty decent access to weekly Japanese sales and monthly US sales during Wii's life. There wasn't some big discrepancy between shipped and sold.

Easier to see, here's Wii shipments versus several earlier systems through about 4 years.

 

[Jest Chillin]

what? Wii demand/popularity was high from the very get go and remained that way for over two years.

You're thinking consumerist, not production.

Just because a console sales hit for a month or two doesn't mean it will continue to sell at that rate. Businesses know this so they're not going to see first month sales and turn around and invest millions more into factories to boost production.

They have to wait for the market to develop enough information points to have a trustworthy pattern and even then it's a guess.

 

[Celine]

Not only is that form pretty hard to interpret, it says sales, not shipped. When I worked at Gamestop in the companies highest selling region at the time and restocks of Wii's were months apart and racked up to 2 per store at most.

Cumulative sell-through in US:

Wii prolonged shortages were caused by unprecedent demand.
At the time Nintendo was pumping more systems in the US market than any other console did in the past but wasn't enough to satiate demand until mid 2009.
Then Nintendo had the breath room to build up stock for the holiday and Wii scored a record breaking (for home consoles) holiday season.

 

[Deepwater]

So you didn't like the Wii, therefore it only sold because people were tricked into buying it. Of course.

It's only been pointed out about a billion times, but I'll re-iterate the actual facts: Nintendo shipped more Wiis out to retail than any console in history. It was literally the fastest selling console ever, for about its first 3 years. Nintendo didn't "limit supply". They literally supplied more units than had ever been done before.

I'll say again: there has to be actual demand for a product for "artificial demand" to make any meaningful contribution. We're talking about products that sell millions here, not some shopping channel piece of garbage marketed to a tiny shopaholic slice of the populace.

And to answer your question: Wii Sports was a fun game that really took off. That's what sold the Wii. People weren't playing it because they felt special for finding one.

Whether or not the attempt to create artificial demand is successful doesn't dictate whether or not that's the strategy.

It's pretty clear that they limit production so that output is less than demand (at any given time). Occam's Razor would leave us to believe it's create artificial demand. Whether or not they've been successful with that doesn't really dictate if that's the strategy. Because they also do the same thing with their limited edition DS/3DS.

Apple does the same thing for iPhones.

 

[Tangeroo]

Free cash flow. It's expensive to tie up resources in inventory. Also limiting initial production runs potentially allows for minor changes in subsequent batches to fix issues (like scratching for instance).

This is the actual answer. I get the outrage, but if you have even a base understanding of how supply chains work, this should be obvious.

 

[qko]

BOTW figure-locked dlc has made finding certain amiibo impossible. As a result, reseller prices are shooting through the roof. $50+ for a Smash Link amiibo is insane.

A similar thing is happening with the Switch itself. The console is marked up and selling quite successfully on eBay.

What benefit does Nintendo get from this? Sure, the products are in-demand, but without enough supply to meet said demand, the only ones profiting are the scalpers.

I thought Smash Link Amiibo wasn't compatible with BoTW? Why would anyone purchase it for $50?

http://www.nintendo.com/amiibo/games/detail/the-legend-of-zelda-breath-of-the-wild-wii-u

I agree that NES Classic stock was short sighted, but I can't say Nintendo intended to supply constrain the Switch since it launched in March (non-peak season) and it still broke a lot of its own internal records for consoles launched in the holiday season.

Also seems like people forget about the January post Wii U launch NPD numbers which saw heavy returns from scalpers who were not successful.

 

[darkstar0155]

Whether or not the attempt to create artificial demand is successful doesn't dictate whether or not that's the strategy.

It's pretty clear that they limit production so that output is less than demand (at any given time). Occam's Razor would leave us to believe it's create artificial demand. Whether or not they've been successful with that doesn't really dictate if that's the strategy. Because they also do the same thing with their limited edition DS/3DS.

Apple does the same thing for iPhones.

Occam's Razor, being that the most simple answer is usually the correct one, does not point to artificial demand by artificially limiting supply.

 

[Deepwater]

Occam's Razor, being that the most simple answer is usually the correct one, does not point to artificial demand by artificially limiting supply.

Then what is the most simple answer?

 

[Seik]

Its better to underestimate production than overestimate.

Yeah, they learned that the hard way with the Wii U. Europe retailers sent units back to them because they had too much, shit was sad.

However, Amiibo are still in demand, it wouldn't hurt anyone to rerelease some of those.

 

[Glass Shark]

Then what is the most simple answer?

Nintendo is not the best at estimating demand. amiibos are prefect evidence of this.

 

[darkstar0155]

Then what is the most simple answer?

That they don't want a bunch of units sitting in a warehouse (wii U and 3DS) and tried to match supply closest to demand.

In the case of the Wii and NES mini they underestimated demand, and who could blame them.

Everyone said the NES mini was artificial demand, yet they have turned off production of it. So no, it would have made zero sense to artificially constrain the supply, and then shut down the production lines.

 

[Deepwater]

Nintendo is not the best at estimating demand. amiibos are prefect evidence of this.

Considering they're a toy company, I find this hard to believe.

That they don't want a bunch of units sitting in a warehouse (wii U and 3DS) and tried to match supply closest to demand.

In the case of the Wii and NES mini they underestimated demand, and who could blame them.

Everyone said the NES mini was artificial demand, yet they have turned off production of it. So no, it would have made zero sense to artificially constrain the supply, and then shut down the production lines.

Then how do we contrast this business philosophy with what Sony and Microsoft are doing?

 

[PassiveObserver]

Then how do we contrast this business philosophy with what Sony and Microsoft are doing?

Nintendo is a small company compared to those two juggernauts.

 

[Version 3.0]

Then what is the most simple answer?

In the case of Nintendo, it's been stated many, many times: incompetence. Or, if you prefer, extreme conservatism.

I swear, this topic is like the GAF's Anti-Vax movement: not just completely unsupported by data, but completely at odds with all available data. And yet, it keeps chugging along.

 

[Forsaken82]

Underestimating stock is more cost efficient than overestimating.

You are losing money the longer a product stays on the shelf, so there is financially no point to over manufacturing. Business wise, it's smarter to keep the shipments small, so you maintain demand and keep the assembly line moving smoothly rather than large initial shipments that don't sell out which backs up the manufacturing.

 

[Booker Dewitt]

Then how do we contrast this business philosophy with what Sony and Microsoft are doing?

Well, one company is based almost exclusively (in the us) around video games, the other two are branches of a much bigger corporation.

 

[darkstar0155]

Considering they're a toy company, I find this hard to believe.



Then how do we contrast this business philosophy with what Sony and Microsoft are doing?

PS2 was out of stock for a long while, which is the closest comparison to the Wii, were they artificially constraining supply?

MSoft and Sony don't have anything comparable to amiibos or the NES mini so cant make a comparison.

The X1 and the PS4 were both sold out at launch. Were they artificially constraining supply?

 

[Lonely1]

Didnt Nintendo shipped like 2 million? Thats not a bad sum. Plus, coming from the WiiU. Having stories of a hot product thats hard to get is much better that a product collecting dust on shelves. I would say that 2 million is close to optimum imho.

 

[Sephzilla]

In theory, limited stock is supposed to provoke more people to impulse buy things when they see them at the store in fear of "I might not get another chance to buy this". In reality, it just prevents consumers from spending money on a product they've already decided they want.

 

[Glass Shark]

Find me a single source that definitively supports Nintendo or any other consumer electronics company purposely shipping less product to stores than they think they can sell and I will believe it. Every time this topic comes up people claim it happens without providing proof. Simple business school 101 lessons, many of which have been readily provided in this thread, show that there's no benefit to artificial scarcity. Stop being willfully ignorant and think critically.

 

[jblank83]

Then how do we contrast this business philosophy with what Sony and Microsoft are doing?

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/sony-playstation-4-has-sold-more-2-1-million-units-2D11687493
Two weeks after it launched its next-generation video game console, Sony has sold more than 2.1 million PlayStation 4 units

https://www.cnet.com/news/nintendo-switch-nes-classic-launch-supply-shortage-wii-u-bowser/
For Friday's Switch launch, Nintendo shipped out 2 million units worldwide

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/20...ch_production_following_good_pre-order_demand
Nintendo president Tatsumi Kimishima has revealed that there are plans to increase production of the Switch following encouraging levels of demand in terms of pre-orders.

I don't know. What are they doing? Because it sounds a lot like they're doing exactly what they should.

What it really seems like is people pushing a narrative of Nintendo using manipulative, unethical tactics, a narrative whose main purpose is to downplay the value/quality of a Nintendo system. "Nintendo systems suck. People only buy them because of artificial demand. Also fanboys."

 

[Sephzilla]

Find me a single source that definitively supports Nintendo or any other consumer electronics company purposely shipping less product to stores than they believe they can sell and I will believe it. Every time this topic comes up people claim it happens without providing proof. Simple business school 101 lessons, many of which have been readily provided in this thread, show that there's no benefit to artificial scarcity. Stop being willfully ignorant and think critically.

I get your point, and you're probably right that it's not an intentional thing Nintendo does. But the one thing that seems to keep getting brought up is that Nintendo seems to be the only company in his industry that routinely has stock problems. And this has been an issue that has dogged them for so long that they realistically should have been able to find a solution for it at this time. So the answer is that either Nintendo intentionally keeps the supply short or they just do a horrible job of estimating demand

 

[Deepwater]

I don't know. What are they doing? Because it sounds a lot like they're doing exactly what they should

No company is going to say "hey we're not going to make supply=demand" regardless of the reasons.

And coming out and saying "we're going to increase production to match preorders" also does not disprove the idea that they're making sure not EVERYONE who wants a switch will get one at release.

Do other companies have stock issues when consoles get released? Yes. But Nintendo is the only one who consistently has a supply shortage well past a console's release.

 

[darkstar0155]

I get your point, and you're probably right that it's not an intentional thing Nintendo does. But the one thing that seems to keep getting brought up is that Nintendo seems to be the only company in his industry that routinely has stock problems. And this has been an issue that has dogged them for so long that they realistically should have been able to find a solution for it at this time. So the answer is that either Nintendo intentionally keeps the supply short or they just do a horrible job of estimating demand

PS2 had stock problems

360 had stock problems at first

PS4 had stock problems at first

PS3 did not have stock problems

Wii U didn't have stock problems

3DS didn't have stock problems

Wii had stock problems

Switch is slightly having stock problems

Amiibos had stock problems

In conclusion, every company has had stock problems at least at first for some products, and some products they haven't.

 

[thepenguin55]

Its better to underestimate production than overestimate.

^^^This. While it's bad to leave money on the table (like what Nintendo did with the NES Classic) it's generally much worse to over estimate demand and lose money because you produced too much of something.

 

[jblank83]

No company is going to say "hey we're not going to make supply=demand" regardless of the reasons.

And coming out and saying "we're going to increase production to match preorders" also does not disprove the idea that they're making sure not EVERYONE who wants a switch will want one.

Do other companies have stock issues when consoles get released? Yes. But Nintendo is the only one who consistently has a supply shortage well past a console's release.

You're reiterating your stance without addressing the information.

Switch had equivalent stock at launch to other console launches, as shown above.

We know they had an initial estimate of 10 million consoles for 2017, which is reasonable given how poorly the Wii U sold:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ninten...e-screen-panel-supplier-for-switch-1484719384

That number is to increase due to demand.

Again, what are they doing that is demonstrably an "artificial supply constraint"?
Because all reasonable evidence says such a criticism is incorrect, at best.