I disagree. I can always pay the monthly subscription equivalent of the old standalone license and then just torrent the DRM- and cloud-free version of Photoshop. The developer still technically gets paid, but I'm under no illusion that my actions are in any way justified.
> a diablo like cannot be compared to a lengthy RPG.
I tried to look up how "lengthy" this game exactly is going to be and I'm not content with my results. "Our goal is to make it as long as possible with the funding that we get from Kickstarter" is as bland response as it can get. And from the look of it Pillars won't have a decent voice acting. Path of Exile does, not only main characters taunts, but also NPC dialogs and environmental lore (journals, statues, inscriptions, etc.). Recently, they released an expansion pack which added more story and fully voiced NPCs. In my book this "Diablo-like" can hold candle to a "lengthy RPG" just fine.
I really hope Pillars succeeds, but I'm going to hold my judgement until it's fully released.
> If they made a good game, and all that's bad about it is the drm scheme, is that really a "bad job"?
Apparently it is, since it's such a deal-breaker for you and you actively seek DRM-free games. And it's ok, because user experience is extremely important. Even if the gameplay is good, technical obstacles which won't let players enjoy the game will absolutely ruin its opinion. It was especially evident with always-online games that had problems during the launch (Diablo III, SimCity).
> Unfortunately, I'm pretty averse toward MMOs in general (...)
Ah, well. They're not for everyone. I'm not a big fan of them myself; I prefer to go at my own pace and often end up playing them like in a single-player mode.
Interesting point with emulation; I haven't considered that.
> Other than not liking MMOs, I do have a varied taste in RPGs.
What about roguelikes? Again, they might not be for everyone, but I had tons of fun with classics like Nethack and ADOM.