And that is fair enough and something I completely back; it's not the consumers job to agree or justify a developers or publishers choices nor do they need to buy the products they don't feel like supporting. The feedback loop is extremely crucial and criticism is completely fair when we are talking about paid products. However, I was responding to posters ridiculous conspiracy theories and calling generally all developers "cunts, lazy, incompetent and spiteful", which is an accusation I don't take lightly without any proof.
That is a good point; without concrete data consumers don't need to be able justify their opinions regarding DRM. It's unlikely that we'll ever see the research or data (nor will it be completely accurate as you can't A/B-test the world), but I also don't see why it would be hard to see how publishers can justify it, even if it's not necessarily cheap. I also wouldn't say that Steam was begrudgingly adopted, or that the general Jane Consumer on PC even cares about DRM, but that's beside the point.
Steam was forced on us. It certainly was met with truckloads of criticism. It really sucked for the longest time in many documented ways. also, I don't think people care about DRM because they don't know how vile it actually is.
Again, completely fair and I have definitely left some titles on the shelf because of an online-only integration that I felt had no value, and would rather spend my money elsewhere. I also have my doubts on the the functionality of individual services (I'm not too concerned about Steam or uPlay or Origin, but that's obviously a risk I'm willing to take) and I care deeply about archival purposes and being able to see our legacy, so yes, the service-based approach definitely has downsides without much direct value (though at least Steam offers some, especially tools like Steam Workshop or marketplace are a good example of how it can add value to the product).