The distinction I'm drawing is that to consume a movie (etc.) you need the images to make it into your brain; OTOH a game can be played without its code ever leaving the device. To effectively stop people from saving the images means stopping freedom of thought; that's different from "I'll rent you this program only on this closed tamper-resistant platform" which doesn't claim a right to control what happens in your own brain. Maybe it's clearer if you think of a cochlear implant -- should it be against the law for me to run my own software on my own cochlear implant? Fuck no. Likewise for future cognitive prostheses. So DRM can't be more than a tiny speedbump to a person wanting to copy a movie, in a free society; but it might still work for things like games, if sellers can keep convincing people to accept good-enough DRM platforms.

When it comes to suing someone for distributing a work they copied, like you I don't see a difference between a game and a movie.

(added: I dunno why you were downvoted.)