Going all meta, this is related to becoming a multipolar world, rather than US dominated.
It's inevitable that more and more barriers will arise, at all levels; legal, economical, personal.

Well, in 2007 when I started using Steam, PC downloads where still bearable with single-digit Mbit bandwidth. Wait one or two hours and ready to go. In 2013 I noticed, that I can't try out the stuff I bought on the same evening anymore, so that was the last sale for me. I don't bitch, because that doesn't help. I simply quit PC gaming. My existing library is big enough now. Occasionally I will a get classic on GOG. They have a better MB to gameplay ratio anyway. ;-)

Just because someone lives in a specific country does not mean he has fast internet. My parents live in a small town in Germany and the fastest internet they get is 125-150kB/s... so stop talking like you know everything.

Yes it is

And how many people in German with that con?

Then come back to see Indonesia, where the average speed is 700 kbps. Bullshit. There's not even a comparison in the slightest.

And mind you, it's very common to see people with a mere 2.5G speed here. 3G is starting to blooming, 4G is non existent.

So according to the Akamai comparison the avarage speed of Indonesia is 2.4Mb/s... sure Germany has a higher avarage (8.1Mb/s) ... but seriously, it just shows that there are parts in each country with high speed and with low speed. And regardless where you are living, if your connection is slow it sucks, so yeah I am annoyed at your saying others don't have a right to complain just because other people in that country might have a good speed -.-

Thanks for leaning in to save some reputation. But I have to clarify: FTTH penetration in Germany is below 0.5 %. It's more exotic than E1 (T1 equivalent) was in the 90s (where everyone else had POTS modems). Broadband/TV cable expansion in urban areas also stopped in the 90s. In some places where cable is available, you can also get FTTC with up to 25-50 Mbit.

But for most people it's either Annex.B ADSL (worse than Annex.A used everywhere else) with 6 Mbit on average (some get only 2, very few get 10-16) or even 2G/3G/4G mobile with a few GB traffic allowance.

Which is fine for downloading a GOG classic here and there, but nothing useful for current AAA offerings on the PC digital distribution market. And Steam isn't even the worst, EA's Origin doesn't even allow you to save backups, it requires a complete redownload on every reinstall.

Just to clarify: My main argument was not just about "Internet connection is too slow". It's actually fast enough for surfing the web and stuff like YouTube works fine, too, even in HD. Though upload speed (below 1 Mbit) sucks.

The consideration I made was: "How well does it fit with the digital distribution model PC gaming is turning into." And my conclusion was: "Doesn't work for me anymore!" Now the game publishers release bigger games than ever and strip away distribution alternatives for DRM and cost-saving reasons (while keeping the savings for themselves).

They simply lost sight of their customer's needs, I won't jump through hoops to get their newest releases through a keyhole or even move to a more expensive place to get them faster. While gaming is nice hobby, it's not THAT important.

I know :-) I was just bothered by the reaction and generalization to your post.

The IP law. You know, that law people pretend to respect when they publicly frown at torrents. You are not a licensor. You are not a legal distributor. You can't fucking resell copies of software without a distribution agreement with the IP owner, no more than you can sell CDs with the content of your GOG account, or buy up GOG gift keys during a 80% off sale and sell them at 30% off during dry spells. Bootleg keys is IP infringement (or "theft", if you're a copyright nut).

Copyright law is unjustifiable morally. It is used by those who could not compete in a free and fair market, and anyone who supports it is closer to a thief than those who "infringe" upon it could ever be.

Besides that, we're not even talking about copying and reselling, we're talking about reselling a single copy you bought.

Hello, I'm your friendly local neighborhood musician. I like owning the rights to my music and I enjoy the complete control over my music that comes with it. I DON'T like when someone decides to use my music in a commercial way without my express permission, those ways including re-recording my music and selling their versions, or using my music in a commercially released film. Copyright laws protect me and my works and often times my financial livelihood.. How does wanting that protection make me a "thief"?

Or to take it out of the entertainment industry; lets say your boss assigns you a task. The task is you must create a chart graph depicting the expected costs and expected pay off of a new marketing campaign. If you complete the task you will earn a $10 raise. You spend weeks on the chart graph and just as you're headed to your boss' office with it a coworker rushes over and shoves you to the ground, picks the chart graph off the floor and signs their name to it and presents it to your boss. The boss is impressed by the chart (which now bears both of your signatures) and gives each of you a $5 raise (splitting the original raise). Is that fair to you? What if you had been unable to sign the chart at all and had completely lost out on the raise?

On your other note: I would assume (having not read the Terms of Service in a while) that your use of Steam is limited completely to non-commercial use. So buying and reselling even a single Steam key (without being a licensed reseller) is already against the rules. Before that opens up a can of "That proves Steam is evil!", Amazon, iTunes, eMusic and most other digital download stores including GOG itself has a similar outlook on that.

Because your "protection" comes at the cost of fair competition. It's an artificial monopoly. Just because someone is the first to do something does not mean that you are the only one who should be allowed to do such, and by preventing a fair market, you have essentially stolen your competitor's chance to prove themselves. If someone can play their song ten times better than you can, why shouldn't they be able to profit from it? They're not doing anything to prevent you from continuing to do such.

Your analogy doesn't work at all because the boss is commissioning you to do the graph- they are paying for the service, not the graph itself. If someone wanted to photocopy the graph and study it, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to. Likewise, musicians and such could work for patronage and other such methods that don't require them to give up their dignity and fairness. Or do you believe that musicians didn't exist before copyright law?

And ad hominem tu quoque is a horrible excuse for anything. Just because you can name other abusers doesn't justify the abuse.

Sorry, but that's wrong. Please learn about the the first-sale doctrine and the exhaustion doctrine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine

This is stuff which has been clarified during the last century already. If game distributors had legal means to restrict cross-region trading they wouldn't implement finicky DRM measures hurting their customers and sue the hell out of the traders instead.