But over time people will just get used to it and accept it much like they go along with almost everything else. I remember a time in the PC gaming world that if a game didn't work once installed then all hell would break out in the company's forums and in the gaming news. These days? Several games that require always-on connections such as MMOs have had outages the first week of release and most have just shrugged their shoulders. That kind of thing is almost expected these days and not many care. Sure, there's a vocal few that complain about it but once the problems are sorted out then people tend to forget they couldn't play their game for the first two or three days after paying for it.
My thought on why this is likely not true is because even today it would be quite a stretch to expect enough of the market to be able to provide an always-on connection. Take the US for instance, how many people who currently have a 360 couldn't get the next console simply because they don't the proper connection to support it?
Plus, why is always-on DRM necessary for consoles when we've heard from the industry for years that the reason they focus on consoles is because piracy is almost non-existent on those platforms?
Is it to prevent used game sales? I understand the thinking since not only do publishers not get a piece of the used game sales transaction but the console manufacturer doesn't get a piece of it either like they do from new games through licensing fees. But they might as well hold up a sign that says, "Hey customers! Please sue us!" Plus Gamestop, and others, would likely get involved since it would hit their bottom line quite severely. It's great for the publishers that somehow they've convinced enough of the courts that a EULA allows them to cancel out people's first sale doctrine rights but if they prevent used game sales on such a scale then I guarantee that people will buy less and rent more. I expect publishers to go after rental companies next.