The news seems to miss the news, and pat itself on the back.
Nintendo "doesn't actually make Pokemon Go," they just own a significant portion of the Pokemon company. Oh, so they do own that. Oh, they don't actually make the software for the game... but they are the major owner of the company that sells the license and makes the money off merchandise.
Who is more clueless, the investors that thought this being such a huge market hit that there are Pokemon zombies on all the sidewalks would sell merch, or the reporters who can't figure out that the game itself makes less money than the brand boost? They have existing, entrenched retail presence of their merch.
Who is more clueless, the people who think that the stock shouldn't have gone up because Nintendo already included Pokemon Go in their revenue forecast, or people who assume that their forecast was realistic enough that they might have exceeded it?
I don't know if the stock is overpriced or not, or if it was overpriced at its peak. And that makes me better informed than the media on this question! ;)