In all fairness, Steam didn't invent DRM.
When Steam came around, it was actually in its own way a chance to get rid of some other forms of DRM, like disc checks for physical media, which included deliberate mastering error on legal discs.

Steam obviously never tried to make things DRM-free or anything, but at least one accidental scratch didn't destroy your only copy of the game anymore of which you couldn't burn a backup because of those DRM manufacturing defects.

Whether it was good to replace one form of DRM with another can be discussed, and the supporters of DRM-free movement will undoubtedly say no, but after Steam breaking a code wheel, losing a manual, or scratching a CD-ROM was no longer an issue.

For the majority of gamers that outweighs the requirement for Steam launcher, third party DRM applications, and online requirements which were new forms of DRM that were at least in the bigger picture introduced by Steam.

It is tempting to think what would have happened if Steam had been launched DRM-free from the beginning, but the answer is: probably nothing. The game industry have had chances many times to get rid of DRM, like when moving from floppies to optical media, but every time it has only meant an older form of DRM being replaced by a new form of DRM.

And one thing that is perhaps forgotten by the traditional GOG customers is that most gamers don't care to play older games anyway. If you make the argument that you can't play some at the moment new game title five years from now, a good number of them don't care about it anymore than an average person cares about last week's weather forecast.

Because a DRMed release on another site is not a big deal. It is normal. The DRM isn't the story here. The Story is the backlash for DRM in the game on GOG. There was no backlash on other storefronts, there was no story to cover. This is the only semi-major community that cares about DRM and its inclusion and it shows. The games sell great elsewhere. It's only that there has been such a vocal outcry that has caused anyone to take any notice.

I hope that answers your questions. No one cares about the DRM aspect except the people lashing back on this site. People like the story of a backlash though.

Maybe we shouldn't use the label "gamer" in a serious discussion? Because, in the broadest sense of the word (gamer), "most gamers" play a game on their phone when they're bored (2021, globally).
Looking at the major publishers involved in the making of remaster (sure, that's not the same as preservation), the amount of people interested in playing old games probably shouldn't be underestimated.

1. B/c companies can get away w/ this, on most stores that actually allow DRM. They (dev's and pub's) know gamers want XYZ game and want it ASAP, no matter the cost of the gamers' rights (and lack thereof, these days). Plus, they know they can re-sell the same game to you DRM-FREE on GOG later (if GOG sticks to that direction, not sure after Hitman 1: GOTY here)...and make you buy it AGAIN. And then they (the dev's and pub's) might Remaster it so you can but it AGAIN. And then they might Remake it...so you can buy it AGAIN. Repeat cycle.

2. B/c the journalists probably get games to play now, are done w/ them, and then often move on to the next game to review. I'd also guess they might not care about DRM-FREE stuff right now; who knows. [shrug] Who knows, they might have editors and/or bosses above them that might tell them not to talk about DRM in an article, unless given a green light? [shrug]

3. Two part answer: consumers want the game now and/or buy games dirt-cheap.

"Want It Now" part.
Same reason consumers still "buy" (and yes, I do use that term VERY loosely here) MMO's, sub to MMO's, and/or any buy games you can play single-style even w/ brutal DRM (like Diablo 3 on PC) - b/c they want to play said game NOW! Most people that play games probably have decent hardware and are connected online most of the time - so, they don't even think about that stuff. They probably don't often replay games either, especially since there's so many to "buy" and little time to play them all in.

"Buy Games Dirt-Cheap" Part.
There's also another factor that, let's face it - games get devalued quickly. Humble, Fanatical, and Bundle Sites sell tons of Steam keys (and other services too); and these games are often cheaper per game than say on GOG. A lot of these games get so devalued fast b/c they don't sell well enough to constantly move units at high-pricing, got annoying DRM, release tons of Season Passes, release Expansions, come out released in a broken state and will need patching, etc etc. So, many are going to "buy the game" where it's currently cheapest, right?

The last game I paid $55 for was Witcher 1 for PC, for crying out loud. I've gotten game so dirt-cheap in bundles from Humble. I literally bought a few months ago Cyberpunk 2077 PC version for $18 (before tax) from GameStop.

Plus, with Epic giving away free games every week for the last few years - sure, I'll take those too. And I'm sure many other games will too.

4. B/c it takes the GOG-crowd that knows what DRM is, doesn't like DRM, and will be vocal about DRM. They know about disc-checks (like StarForce), silly one time one-time phone home activations per PC (like Securom did), PC limits for installing a game like some did (Securom did this), etc etc - and they know this one of GOG's original principles, to preserve titles. So, guess what? If this doesn't follow the GOG Rules and their fandom - they're going to speak up. This is probably one of the last Havens for PC Gaming that supposed to have ALL games being DRM-FREE here (as long as that principle is adhered to). This Hitman 1: GOTY isn't adhering to this, GOG Fans spoke up; rightfully so. Kudos to this community for doing so!

5. B/c they're titles in long-running franchises and people will buy them. Well-known IP names, franchises, and stuff from big-name game companies flat-out sell. They want to play now and aren't worried about the future. And if dev's and pub's are worried about a game's future - heck, they know they can Remaster it numerous times and/or Remake it again...and people will re-buy it.

Interesting tangential factoid: this is exactly what the motoring review industry was like, before Jeremy Clarkson. Jeremy Clarkson was the first journalist worthy of that name in the motor vehicle industry. Before his honest appraisals, every car "journalist" (really "gazetteer" is a more apt substantive) just regurgitated what the companies gave them in brochures and on expenses-paid junkets to "test drive" the new vehicles, etc.

So what the gaming industry needs is some Jeremy Clarkson-like journalists who are not afraid to tell the truth. (They will almost certainly be blocked from early reviews, initially at least, since risk-averse corporates will avoid even the possibility of a bad review, rather than gamble on a great one.) Eventually, when confidence levels are high and the journalist has proven to be scrupulous, a career path will become valid.

*crosses fingers *

:)

And those people I don't consider gamers at all. Playing some casual throwaway game on the phone to distract oneself for a few minutes? Nope, that ain't it. In my view, a person is not a gamer unless they purposefully dedicate some of their free time to play games as in any other hobby.