Mine was more aimed at the publishers than the consumers. That said, you do have the crackpot consumers whose "rational" response to "ethics in games modding" is to send death threats. Those folks are loons.
I do think seeing the potential problems in the current system and expecting them to happen is rational, especially given Valve's weaknesses as a company.
As for the publishers, big AAA publishers really seem to be short-sighted and look at the immediate future rather than the long term, and that shreds goodwill quickly. I don't know how many sales on PC this decision will cost Bethesda, but I can see bad word of mouth on their next title due to this, and given how many great games there are these days, it's never been this painless to vote with your wallet.
That's because some games are inelastic goods to some people, and they'll pay through the nose for their favorite game. The downside to this is if you try to capture (as a publisher) all of that monetary value from the whales, you price out everyone else.
I made an irrational decision last week with MKX. Regretting that one due to buggy port+ shady DLC practices. That's why companies will always get away with it- we'll always find a way to justify it if we care enough. Gamers keep coming back to the abusive relationship , and there are new suckers born every minute.
I have noticed the last couple of years, the amount of games I've bought has decreased though- as my backlog increases, my standards for what's good enough to spend money on increases, and I can wait for sales more easily. Doesn't mean I won't pay full price if I feel very strongly that I'll get value for it, but AAA'ed up DLC-heavy games or FTP whale games just don't provide that value. This is another layer of cost-raising effectively, and if I felt that having to pay $10+ for mods was part of the experience, I might just decide the whole package isn't worth it anymore for some games.