In this thread, I asked if anyone could think up an effective DRM scheme, given that I doubt that publishers are just going to give up on it any time soon.
Then, not an hour or two later, I ran across this article at The Escapist. Shamus, the author, pretty much answered my question perfectly. I agree with pretty much all his points and, also, his conclusions.
I certainly think this is where a few publishers are heading with their DRM designs. It will be interesting (in a macabre sort of way) to watch them destroy themselves trying to make the perfectly piracy-resistant game that nobody actually wants to play. I can see it now, buying a single-player game and getting constant lag because you are essentially playing a Massively Single Player Online Game...

How does one define the effectiveness of DRM? Is it the amount it deters piracy? The amount it increases sales? Or some other metric? I think the biggest issue with the whole DRM thing is that most companies employing DRM are focused on the first metric I mentioned, while ignoring the second metric, and as a result they manage to deter some piracy (at least initially), while at the same time making themselves far less profitable. Fortunately, I think this will simply result in such companies eventually failing (barring government intervention), to be replaced by companies that realize the second metric is the one the needs to be focused on.

This is not a panacea for all games, but one way to increase sales amidst the piracy 'epidemic' is by including physical swags in your retail release. You cannot digitally pirate cloth map, figurine, t-shirt, art book, or mouse pad, so the genuine retail copy has a unique value that cannot be replicated by the illegal digital copy.

90% of players are pirates? AC2 is an MMO? John Riccitiello doesn't get the lost sale argument? What the hell...
Also VGC is not a reliable source of information. :P
I agree it's effective on that level of course. But like Starforce, the only thing that really works is going all nazi with it...which ends up doing far more bad than good anyway, so...stupid.

I would define it as an equilibrium of sales and disenfranchised customers such that the publisher maximizes their profit. This isn't a pro-gamer definition, but then again, neither is DRM.
The trouble is that publishers need to blame something other than the quality (or lack thereof) of the game if sales are low. The easiest method is to just blame pirates, then trump up piracy figures for the shareholders. More disenfranchised customers begets lower profits begets more draconian DRM begets more disenfranchised customers, etc etc. Thus, it ends up spiraling towards the inevitable worst case scenario (no profits for the company, nobody playing games).
To break this cycle, the management of a company would have to step forward and admit they made a mistake. This might also force them to admit that they have, perhaps, been making lousy games all along. This would almost certainly get them fired by the shareholders (never get between an investor and their earnings! :P). So... I am not holding my breath... at least not for the bigger publishers already well into the DRM death spiral.
I think holders of intellectual property should have their rights protected, but driving off everyone just to get rid of pirates defeats the purpose a bit. It is very much a throwing the baby out with the bath water situation. I know we disagree on how to deal with Intellectual Property, DarrkPhoenix, but I think we can both agree that the way DRM is heading is just plain retarded ;).

Agreed. And while from a customer perspective I take issue with DRM because it often negatively impacts the customer, I'd be able to understand the whole thing from a business perspective if I thought DRM actually helped companies sell more games (afterall, they're running a business, and should run it as successfully as possible, externalities and illegal actions aside). My main overall beef with DRM is that I think that DRM being negative from a customer perspective also often ends up translating into it being negative from a business perspective as well- it's basically a loss any way you look at it. Of course, as you mentioned, reversing on it jeopardizes the executives who are currently supporting it, and in a world where most executives and board members seem to be interested primarily in their own interests rather than the companies' interests you're going to have CYA prevail over business sense. Oh well, with the path things are on it will just mean some of the dead wood gets cleared out of the industry to make room for new companies who embrace more sensible strategies.

Even though there are certain reasons for games on GOG being low-priced, it's one of my favorite distributors and I wish others were as consumer friendly. There are a good number of games on here that I can easily pirate, but instead I have opted to buy them because they are affordable and DRM free. The GOG staff are also friendly and willing to assist you. I hope that my purchases help continue these practices.
On the other hand, I'd never pay 60 dollars for a singleplayer game that requires me to be constantly connected to the internet through a digital distributor or retailer. I don't know who at Ubisoft thought that would provide any kind of incentive for people to buy the game.
Edit: Wait a second, GOG is not ONE of my favorite distributors, it's my ONLY favorite distributor.

Respect goes a long way. :)
I trust GOG is having at least some effect on new games and their DRM (or lack thereof).

In my opinion piracy is an evil difficult to eradicate.
Developers should think to strike it in a different way from now.
I think the solution is to low the prices and eliminate all drm. It's the way of Gog and I hope will be the winner one.

This might be the way to go. However this might help in the case of "pirating fans", not in the case of people pirating for the sake of pirating and because they can get it for free.
But anyways, I'd like to have such things included as extras.

Well, I know I will be avoiding games like Ubisofts that have such restrictive DRM.
It may not do much good, but every little helps, right?
The money I might have spent on games like C&C4 or the new Splinter Cell will go on GOG games or indie ones.

"future" and "DRM" in one sentence? As Megadeth once sang about military intelligence: two words combined that can't make sense. ;)
If DRM has the future, it is the death of gaming. Yea, i know, i'm harsh.
But we we're all subjected to the "drm fights piracy", which is a bit funny, and now, with PS3, we have "drm fighting people who bought the game". So now, sharing a game is bad? I did that in the 90's and still do today. Absurd! What's next, people playing the game for more than 10 minutes a day? Because they finish those new, absurdly short games way too fast, and scare away potential buyers with the 'it's short as hell'?
I wonder if Ubi has something against account sharing. I couldn't find any info.