Microsoft and Steam represent the big dogs in just one of the entertainment industries. The others are mobile, broadcast, film, and audio. The latter three have found ways to limit consumer flexibility in order to increase profits and are constantly striving to boost profitability (holding satellite and cable companies for ransom every time contracts are renewed, delaying release to DVD rental outfits like Netflix to increase theater and DVD purchase revenues, renaming property theft as "piracy" which originally was a violent capital crime, region codes, getting the FBI on their side, etc. for example). Mobile app providers have stores that enforce locking apps to a device-user combination (though some allow multiple devices per account). It is only logical the game industry would like a similar regime of restrictions and take them as far as the market and government judicial/legislative entities will allow. Consoles offer a different feature/restriction mix than PCs but I think they'll eventually die out in favor of more generic devices like tablet-laptop hybrids that offer flexibility in game sources. Microsoft knows this and are testing waters with on-line service delivery a la Office 2013. But they'll stave it off for games as long as they can do so profitably while they build their distribution prowess sufficiently to take on Steam. When you join a market, you submit to the lowest common denominator of consumer demand in terms of price and features. Don't like it? Don't join the market. You have a choice.