But then I don't get why they wouldn't market two different CPU's, one backdoored and user-controlling one and a normal maliciousness-free one. It's then up to

But then I don't get why they wouldn't market two different CPU's, one backdoored and user-controlling one and a normal maliciousness-free one. It's then up to the game developers to require a system of the former type to play their game. Then gamers get these and people who mind their privacy and security in computing get the latter. Win-win, right? I mean, people will anyways get computers that obey them. Either an ARM-based or something completely different. There are (at least) two different markets here. People who just want to enjoy products and media (which might be DRM'ed but they don't care) and people who want a computer they can trust. Why should AMD or Intel restrict themselves to the former market?