Do you inspect products before and after transit, to check for damage at the end point? There's a certain level of protection a package has to provide when it's moved individually by actual people, and not in containers, box trucks, or forklifts (where very little can be done to protect contents due to industrial mishaps), so that minor things like a staple, a rock on the ground, or a momentary impulse of force will damage the interior contents. Cheap packaging produces a lot more damaged products at the end point, but companies keep making cheap packaging because pennies saved over bulk boxing results in a slightly higher amount than replacing the damaged contents, because a lot of that damage burden is placed on middle men (like GameStop in this example).

The excuse that most people in this thread keep saying is that "but all electronics are now packaged like that", tacitly suggesting that nothing happens to electronics due to less protective packaging, which is false, and that it's fine because everyone does it, which is also false. Lots and lots of electronics get damaged in transit due to cheap packaging.

I don't disagree that the GameStop in question should have checked the contents before stapling something to the box, but the very need for them to check how bad the packaging is highlights how bad the problem actually is. If the contents were properly protected, they wouldn't need to check to see if a staple would damage it, because electronics used to be protected by foam or cardboard inserts to keep them away from the outside surface of the box.

But, what is worse to you, a single store's momentary incompetence damaging a product, or entire sectors becoming cheaper over time resulting in the damage seen from that store's momentary incompetence? I think the malignant greed of companies and the steady cheapening of society is far, far worse.

The excuse that most people in this thread keep saying is that "but all electronics are now packaged like that", tacitly suggesting that nothing happens to electronics due to less protective packaging, which is false, and that it's fine because everyone does it, which is also false.

I don't disagree that the GameStop in question should have checked the contents before stapling something to the box, but the very need for them to check how bad the packaging is highlights how bad the problem is. If the contents were properly protected, they wouldn't need to check to see if a staple would damage it, because electronics used to be protected by foam or cardboard inserts to keep them away from the outside surface of the box.

But, what is worse to you, a single store's momentary incompetence damaging a product, or entire sectors becoming cheaper over time resulting in the damage seen from that store's momentary incompetence? I think the malignant greed of companies and the steady cheapening of society is far, far worse.