Sellers ask for bundles regularly: several items, one price, one purchase. It is a reasonable ask and we are not against it. It is unbuilt because the licensing underneath it is not a small question.
The part that is easy
Charging once for three items is trivial. So is showing them together and applying a discount. None of that is what is holding it up.
The part that is not
A licence is per item, per buyer, with its own support period and its own activation limit. A bundle has to decide, up front, what happens when:
- One item in the bundle is later removed by its seller
- The buyer wants a refund on one of three items
- Two items in a bundle have different support periods
- The bundle spans two sellers, and one of them is owed more than the other
Every one of those has an answer. Picking answers that are still fair to both sides two years later is the work.
Why we would rather wait
A bundle feature that quietly weakens what a licence means would be worse than no bundle feature. Buyers here are told their licence does not expire and survives the seller leaving. That promise is only worth something if it holds in every case, including the awkward ones.
What works in the meantime
Sellers price a larger item that contains what would have been the bundle, as one product with one licence. It is less flexible and it is honest about what the buyer owns.
