Like anyone besides some code junkies here and young soul rebels will give much of a shit about your explanation - they'll just read it and think 'Hmm, he says he spent $x thousand making the film but he doesn't want to spend a grand or two on licensing for release? Whatever, more like he can't get a distributor to take it'. I accept the copy protection and so on is intolerable to you. It's totally your right to avoid patronising or promoting a distribution medium you dislike and the administration of which offends you. And I respect too your right to post about it online, although I don't think your 'fuck blu-ray' approach is going to convince people of anything more than the intensity of your feeling.

Look at it from the customer's point of view. They really don't care about you or your worldview in 99% of cases. To paraphrase Dov Simens, nobody says 'let's go see a Sony movie tonight, or would you prefer a Paramount film?'. People care about the distribution company even les than they care about the studio, which to say hardly at all. From a distributor's point of view the licensing requirements and costs to release on blu-ray are trivial operating costs, just like there has always been a fee to use the DVD logo on DVD cases and small fees for use of the MPEG codecs, h.264 codecs etc. OK, so the fee is more expensive with blu-ray. You object, I see your point - it doesn't make economic sense if you expect to sell under 3-5000 copies.

I know, you hate distributors. They take a chunk of your money and have overly cosy relationships with theaters and video rental businesses, and this is one reason among many that you market directly. On the other hand, distributors have the funds and expertise to advertise and otherwise promote a film to increase its chances of commercial success, and thus increase your future possibilities for obtaining production financing and having more negotiation power the next time you are looking at a distribution deal.

It seems to me that people who might be interested in your film won't be very exercised about the format (not least because 99% of text adventures employed graphics well below the resolution of DVD anyway), and the people who are merely curious rather than enthusiastic about IF etc. are going to read 1 paragraph of your rant and decide you're a computer geek with a chip on his shoulder.

Most indies will treat these expenses as just another line item. $3000 to buy a lifetime blu-ray reproduction license? OK, I've been on no-budget projects that racked up similar amounts of money just on beta duplication fees for an eventual release to DVD because the distributor didn't have a digital pipeline. Me, I'd rather pay it and have some chance of getting a review by submitting copies of the movie to every little film magazine/website in hopes that they'd work the 'anyone can release to blu-ray now' angle and promote the damn film...which might even get a wider audience for your (valid) thoughts about the licensing costs involved if you mentioned to an interviewer how filmmakers should be prepared for some sticker shock and it's holding them back.

tl;dr valid perspective, but ultimately you're choosing to limit your own distribution.