Well... In this digital world we are all "chasing the technology." Like it or not it is true. In fact, as a hobbyist that has been part of the fun - seeing ever increasing image quality, flexibility and possibility.
How many of us are using the same cameras we used even three years ago? The same versions of any software from five years ago? Look at the FOR SALE section and add up the first page's asking prices. Deduct that from what we all paid retail and the cost of "owning" your gear will make the cost of "renting" your software look like mana from heaven. It is all semantics, IMO.
For me, the new CC Photographer's package is a bargain, even WHEN the price will rise over time (just like every other freaking thing on the planet). Not having to think about keeping ACR, PS & LR versions in synch is a nice plus for me too.
I had initially the same "I want to own, not rent" reaction. As I looked at my history of upgrades over the last decade, and how many pages of version numbers, product keys, etc. I have in my notes - well, it kinda made the distinction a little moot.
As I chase the technology, get new gear over time, and enjoy even greater image quality, flexibility, and possibility - the software (rental or not) will remain a very key component and still the cheapest part of the equation by a huge margin. So, for me at least, after looking at the "big picture" I came to the conclusion that while I'd rather have Adobe pay me to use their software that probably wasn't going to happen and that the value using their products represents, as a percentage of my total expenditure on "photography," is the most cost effective part of it. One man's opinion.
Oh, and my fingernails don't turn yellow from using Adobe like they did when I used Kodak.
Rand