What Kaldaien is trying to say is like:

"DRM means you don't own the product, and you'll eventually lose acces to it. Therefore, subscription based gaming plans are a preferred option, as they don't attempt to deceive you into thinking you're buying an ownable game, often with a real, ownable game price tag. The subscription starts at a given date, has a defined expiration date that depends on the offering you choose, and provides a clearer statement of non-ownership of games."

Personally I get the point, but this take is missing lots of important details that should've been considered before making such an impactful decision:

- Think, for instance, of some of the policies that are already present in some services, such as restrictions for offline play.

- And how much this opinion actually benefits videogame lobbies that are looking into pushing game-as-a-service practices that, very coincidentally, we're attempting to fight against in Europe with initiatives like "Stop Killing Games".

In fact, this message, at this time, could have counterproductive consequences for the non DRM market and overall customer rights exactly because of the surrounding situation.