This is an important issue that effects many industries. Companies would like to have complete control over the lifecycle of their products and preferably theyd like to be able to track it too. They want to shift away completely from property that you buy, to content that you enter a lease with. Just look at the cellphone industry, where they want to make it illegal to unlock your phone and switch providers.

Consoles won't got DRM-free, because DRM is a big part of what they sale to developpers.

Unlike a PC, a console is not a generic computing machine and is harder to crack, because you have to fiddle with the hardware to make it generic enough to crack (or use a cracked version of) the software.

I only partially agree that PC gamers are soft: I think it`s just that many (I'd venture to guess, most) don't care about DRM all that much. At least, not for games.

However, even when the games are DRMed, PC is still superior in my book, because it avoids hardware redundancy (ie, you can do more things with the same machine, reducing the need to own multiple machines).

For me, even moreso than the possibility of DRM-free software, this is the selling point of a PC and if PCs stopped existing tomorrow, I'd get a Mac and play my games on it rather than on a console.

I think the resale market for console games is more significant, because prices for console games remain higher.

Like some people mentioned, people have a specific price range in mind when they acquire games and if the provider can`t meet it, the costumer will achieve it via trading (it becomes a cheaper longer term rental system).

For PC games where games often go down to 3$ of less less than a decade after the game is released, this is less significant.

Really, console gamers complain about this, because they have a lot more to complain about. Inability to do resale will increase the price range of their hobby to unacceptable levels for many.