Package design is on the manufacturer. If you’re buying a product for hundreds of dollars, yeah, it should be packaged in a way that not only presents the product correctly but in a way that adequately protects that investment from incurred damages, handling, transit.
Stapling the front screen is dumb but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to point out the packaging design flaw. If the screen is that close, it would fail under other types of puncture conditions.
Maybe you’re not supposed to purposely puncture the front of the box. I’ll point out that of all the sales of the switch 2 in the world, there’s one store employee that did this. Just how much are you supposed to pander to idiots?
Even if you want to claim liability, it’s a very simple case. Who do you think is responsible for replacing the switch 2s? Nintendo or gamestop? You think gamestop is going to be able to claim defective packaging from Nintendo? If not, then it’s pretty obvious whose fault it is
Anything could always be better. That’s not an argument. The qns is whether the packaging is fit for purpose, barring retards. And considering it’s one store in a global launch having this issues then it’s fine.
If there was mass reports of switch2s being received with cracked screens then I’d say they need to look at their packaging. But there isn’t
You’re simping pretty hard for Nintendo right now dude.
Packaging is part of the manufacturing design. There a million and one products out there that encounter failure edge cases. Are they all “packagings fault?” No probably not explicitly.
But that is part of the packaging design life cycle and companies should be cognizant and responsible for improving their packaging design based on failures in the field.
So it doesn’t matter whose fault it is. What matters is what Nintendo and GameStop do about it. And if one or both of them just says “not my fault” then fuck them.
“Somehow blame Nintendo”
Package design is on the manufacturer. If you’re buying a product for hundreds of dollars, yeah, it should be packaged in a way that not only presents the product correctly but in a way that adequately protects that investment from incurred damages, handling, transit.
Stapling the front screen is dumb but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to point out the packaging design flaw. If the screen is that close, it would fail under other types of puncture conditions.
Maybe you’re not supposed to purposely puncture the front of the box. I’ll point out that of all the sales of the switch 2 in the world, there’s one store employee that did this. Just how much are you supposed to pander to idiots?
Even if you want to claim liability, it’s a very simple case. Who do you think is responsible for replacing the switch 2s? Nintendo or gamestop? You think gamestop is going to be able to claim defective packaging from Nintendo? If not, then it’s pretty obvious whose fault it is
Bruh.
Two things can be true at the same time.
The packaging could be better. The GameStop employee could be “not a dumbass”
But never, ever, underestimate the dumbass factor
Anything could always be better. That’s not an argument. The qns is whether the packaging is fit for purpose, barring retards. And considering it’s one store in a global launch having this issues then it’s fine.
If there was mass reports of switch2s being received with cracked screens then I’d say they need to look at their packaging. But there isn’t
You’re simping pretty hard for Nintendo right now dude.
Packaging is part of the manufacturing design. There a million and one products out there that encounter failure edge cases. Are they all “packagings fault?” No probably not explicitly.
But that is part of the packaging design life cycle and companies should be cognizant and responsible for improving their packaging design based on failures in the field.
So it doesn’t matter whose fault it is. What matters is what Nintendo and GameStop do about it. And if one or both of them just says “not my fault” then fuck them.