axl: Because not having to buy something else (which is also more expensive by the way) in order to get what you actually want and more importantly: what was previously available separately (so there's really no reason for it to be any different now) doesn't have a logical reason behind it. I see that now, thanks.
It's hard to argue when you get to decide what is logical and what isn't.
gameragodzilla: No, logic decides what's logical. And yes, your "principle" isn't logical. $5 extra is hardly worth getting buttmad over and that's the only thing remotely worth complaining about.
=============================================
Logical reasons behind principles is what dictates whether or not I respect them. If they're illogical, I won't respect them, just as I won't respect a principle that demands every game have the logo be in the color of baby blue.
===========================================
And your analogy does exist in real life. I buy drinks in bundles. I don't just look at a six pack of coke and say "well shit, I just want three, so I'm gonna pull out three", or look at a box of cans and think "I only need 5, so I'm gonna rip it open and get 5". You always buy extra in some capacity. Hell, what if all I want is half a bottle of coke? The guy at the store would still "force" me to buy a whole bottle.
========================================
I won't ever respect this opinion, because this opinion is just absurd and nonsensical. Deal with it.
As others have said, principles are often morally based and not based in logic. This doesn't mean they don't hold merit simply because one finds them illogical.
============================
Fair enough, but before it sounded like you were talking for everyone when wording your replies. If you're now stating that the opinion I/others hold being illogical/etc is only your opinion, then that's fine...even if we disagree on the point's validity.
============================
As I said before, there's a difference. With your example(separating parts of games or separating packs of food items) the items are already packaged that way and were originally meant to be bundled/sold a certain way. The items are also all the same(same size/food or drink item/etc) usually.
In my store example, the items were originally sold separately and are two different items(one brand of a product and the other the store owner's brand). In my game example(Blood versions) there are two different versions, not two copies of the same game version being sold together like a case of same flavor sodas.
If we corrected your soda example, it'd be like if they took a case of soda one wanted and put it in a larger case full of another soda and told you you had to buy the larger case/other soda brand to get at the smaller case/brand you wanted inside it.
You see the difference yet?
==================================
It's absurd to not want to be forced to buy something you don't want(that was made to be sold on it's own originally) to get something you do want, or to have to pay more(essentially) for what you want by proxy? Honestly?
Here's an example of something that was once considered "absurd": Once people thought the earth was flat and that the sun went around the earth. ...it was considered absurd to say otherwise. Now we know better, and that just saying something is absurd doesn't make it so(objectively).
