If the price were 24% higher, they'd have a point. At almost 100% markup, that isn't a tariff issue.
Nintendo is putting off preorders in order to maximize their own profits (if people pre-order too early, the US gov't gets the money due to the tariffs, not them, and the pricetag is going to be static, unchanging regardless of who is pocketing it, they did market research to see the max cost the market would bear), nothing more, nothing less.
...did they stop selling consoles at a loss? that was always the strategy in the past, sell the console at a loss, make it up in the games, accessories, and merchandise.
could have sworn they did. thought that was part of the reason they were able to emerge a leader after the games crash in the eighties, that and their willingness to buy back unsold copies of games from retailers.
If the price were 24% higher, they'd have a point. At almost 100% markup, that isn't a tariff issue.
Nintendo is putting off preorders in order to maximize their own profits (if people pre-order too early, the US gov't gets the money due to the tariffs, not them, and the pricetag is going to be static, unchanging regardless of who is pocketing it, they did market research to see the max cost the market would bear), nothing more, nothing less.
They've also already imported hundreds of thousands of the things, so it'd be real nice to mark those up and get 50% more profit.
...did they stop selling consoles at a loss? that was always the strategy in the past, sell the console at a loss, make it up in the games, accessories, and merchandise.
Nintendo has never adopted the razor blade model of selling consoles at a loss.
could have sworn they did. thought that was part of the reason they were able to emerge a leader after the games crash in the eighties, that and their willingness to buy back unsold copies of games from retailers.