What is this "lock-in" advantage that you speak of? I don't think most PC gamers refused to buy e.g. Mass Effect 3, because it is not available on Steam. It is not that unthinkable that people use more than one client for digital purchases, and may migrate to a new one _over time_, keeping the old client around mainly just to access their older purchases (which does not bring money to that older service provider, only buying new games from their service does).

Apple is allowed to prevent people from buying and installing software from other sources besides their official app store in iOS, and MS can always use that as the argument that they should be allowed the same. That is "fair trade", level playing field for all the competitors.

Legally, the complainers have no leg to stand on. They just bought terminable licenses from a digital service. It is no different than how in OnLive you can lose access to many games you have "purchased" before, OnLive promises only two years of access after purchase, I think. It may not feel fair to the complainers, but that's only because they were ignorant, thinking that they have any kind of eternal "right" to the games they bought licenses for from a digital service.

And things can proceed step by step, it doesn't necessarily happen overnight. The digital publisher can slowly change their TOS, introduces new mode of operation that slowly replaces the old service etc.

And it may be the new rivals, e.g. Windows Store, will help the migration by offering you to get _some_ of your Steam/Origin/whatever games for free from their service.

As for piracy argument, I guess that is why we see more and more ISP blocking for pirate sites.

Well, people do pay to have stuff removed elsewhere. Their trash, for example, or extraneous fat.

But yes, DRM-free doesn't automagically increase the value of media, instead, (as far as I'm concerned) DRM lowers it.

It's like blackmailing. :) Pay us or we will put the DRM back in.

Um nope it's not like that... If you like it with DRM you can buy it elsewhere... no one is putting a gun to your head :) A lot of people will buy Ubisoft titles with the Tages removed :)

It was just a joke. In a way it could be like this. You never know why companies are doing what they are doing. Maybe they put DRM in because they really think it helps against piracy. Maybe because they want to have the customers paying extra for removing DRM and getting a DRM free game. Maybe because of some other reason.

It was just a funny answer to PsychoticFoetus comment on paying for something that no longer exists. He has a point. If we would start paying for things that do not exist in the product we want to buy the potential list of things we could get charged for would be endless.

Ah that will not be nice... but I will deffo pay extra 1-2$ for some of the games with awfull DRM out there...

DRM-Free games must be cheaper, since DRM is a costly techonology. We live in a strange world.

Actually DRMs hurts only legitimate buyers. I always pirate DRMed game, as the pirate version is of much higher quality.
If you want to recreate the problem play Settlers 7 when there's no good internet connection. Even single player!
Or buy Half-Life 2 and play it without internet.

I wouldn't pay more for DRM-free game, but the publisher can get more money from me by not licensing the DRM scheme.

I don't ever really feel like paying more for no DRM, but it is something that in general makes me look much more favourably at gog.

I suppose depending on the game and how intrusive/annoying the DRM was elsewhere, I might pay an extra 5 or 10 euros.

Although It does make sense that DRM free games should actually be cheaper...since DRM is expensive...