That has been the intent all along as far as I can tell since it has never "protected" me or done anything that I have ever found of "value" from the experience of be subjected to it.
Copy protection isn't there to protect you, it's there to protect the game maker. You aren't supposed to gain value from it - the game maker is supposed to retain value of the product.
The idea is that if it is harder for you to copy the game than to buy the game, that you'll buy the game.
The unfortunate consequence is that everyone who plays the game is subjected to the security checks.
You're (understandably) mistaking these security precautions as something that benefits you, such as the benefits you gain when you lock your house, arm your car alarm, or submit yourself to security checks at the airport. Those protect you from people walking into your house to steal things, driving off with your car, and bombing your plane - all clear, visible, tangible benefits.
So you wonder, if I'm submitting myself to security measures on this software, where's my benefit? It's very secondary - the idea here is that if they didn't install these measures, then more people would steal the game, and less people would buy it. With less buyers, their profit margin goes down (it costs the same in development if you sell 1 copy or 1,000,000), and they have to charge more for the game ... or can't make a game on the money they expect to make ... or have to make a crappy game because they expect their profit margins to be so low.
So, by submitting to harsh DRM, you gain the dubious, hard to touch, very secondary benefit of a "low priced" game.
