I'm fine with digital. I'm increasingly less fine with DRM the more intrusive/annoying it gets. They aren't obligated to do so at all but if you consider games art at all, wouldn't their preservation be important?People, for some reason, get the impression devs and publishers are obligated to make their game avaleible for the ages when that's none of their business and sometimes even detrimental when later bringing ports, remakes and other types of rereleases, sometimes even sequels. It's shitty? Well, sure, but this isn't any different if not better than how it was with the dominating physical format. Digital and streaming have proven to help preserve and justify rereleases as, for those doing it, it's a way smaller investment and effort than what a full distribution effort would've needed.
Something that happened with films when they started was people just discarding films once they didn't sell anymore. Now we preserve films. Gaming has had similar things happen with secrecy, NDAs, deletion of source codes, etc.
Not saying you have to consider games art, or art worthy or preservation, but it's something to consider. I think media in general should be preserved and that the common person should have the ability to preserve whatever they pay for. I know physical has had issues moving forward but as long as my games work and I can keep the files and make it work, I don't care in the end product if it's digital or physical. I just want to have the rights to use something I paid to use.
And yes, there must be a reason they buy anti-piracy things but I'm not really sure what it is.