This makes sense in 2 ways:
If they didn't have the offcuts, they would have to buy the materials anyway. So accounting for that cost is required.
If they didn't use the offcuts, they would have to bin/recycle them. This is a good reduce/reuse policy.
It's similar with event kit hire companies. They might have 2 of one item on the book, and know they can subhire a further 2 items from a different company.
If you request to hire 2 of the items, it will likely be at the cost of what the other company charges (well, b2b rate at least) plus a margin (to cover delivery, processing, insurance).
Because the company you go to may or may not have 2 items on the shelf. They might only have 1 or none. And they can't suck up the cost of subhiring.
If they hire out the items on the shelf, great. Probably a bit more profit.
If they have to subhire, no big deal. Just slimmer margins
I read the first bold statement on the first page, and knew that they had missed the point.
I absolutely agree with this statement.
I don't expect a video game to be online forever.
However, I do expect companies to have an exit strategy for an online game beyond "just switch off servers".
Maybe this means removing party/matchmaking systems and just making it P2P or LAN only.
Maybe this means releasing a self-hostable server.
As it currently stands, a game can rely on a closed source "black box" software that only official server providers can get access to in order to provide game servers. The moment those servers close, the game can be unplayable and worthless.
Which is what needs to be addressed.