The reasonings behind DRM are just a varied as the reasons against it, there is also an equal amount of misinformation on each side. For example I reject the assertion that the most common reasons for piracy have been refuted, those reasons still exist despite an article cherry picking examples and using them as straw men. There is not just one reason a game gets pirated, there are dozens. Just because game X has a feature that negates excuse #3 does not invalidate the excuse. More likely game X is pirated most often for excuse #s 1, 5 and 7. For example the Tweak Guide article says that intrusive DRM is an excuse for piracy and points to Crysis as an example of a heavily pirated game that did not have intrusive DRM. Another common excuse for piracy is making sure that a game works before buying it, something like the heavily graphics focused Crysis certainly would fit this idea. Here is a game that the developers are touting as the best looking game ever made, that when you upgrade to a video card that hasn't even be released yet this game will still be able to take full advantage of the GPU and produce even better graphics. At that point anyone wanting to play the game had best be sure that it will even run on their machine before shelling out $60 bucks for something that won't run unless they shell out another $300 for PC upgrades. Another excuse is that games cost too much so the article points out The Orange Box as several games for one low price on Steam but was still pirated, ignoring the fact that Steam qualifies as, and indeed is the definition of, intrusive DRM to many gamers.
Which brings up my next point.
When looking at DRM there is a certain threshold for what each individual player is willing to tolerate. Some people love the OnLive system and actively speak out about it becoming the future of gaming, where as most everyone else actively rejects the idea of Always Online DRM. There is a large portion of the gaming community that is comfortable with online activation, but there are still many who aren't. Then you have those who don't mind the much vilified DRM such as Securom or TAGES while some others won't touch a title unless it is DRM free. So when forming an opinion on the viability, effectiveness and intrusiveness of DRM you must look at several schemes and weigh each on it's own merit.
I am firmly in the Anti-Online Activation camp and the shining symbol on the hill for online activation is Steam. If I were to login to Steam and buy a game then that game would be tied to the Steam service and I would have no real stand to take if I didn't like Steam. On the other hand if I went to another retailer to buy a game only to find out that the game would still be tied to Steam then I fully have justification for opposition to Steam. In this day and age with so much commerce happening digitally and the availability of high speed internet; a person walking into a retail store to purchase a game has chosen retail for a specific reason. That reason may not be shared or even understood buy whatever focus group was consulted by the game publisher, but that does not make the reason any less valid nor the customer's money any less valuable. Having Steam tied to retail purchases is what I consider Third Line Forcing which is illegal under US Anti-Consumer laws. Third Line Forcing is when a product is sold with a mandatory 3rd party service. An example would be a car manufacturer designing a fuel tank to only work with pumps from a specific gas station, If you buy this brand of car then you can only ever use this brand of gasoline. This was the basis for the lawsuit against Microsoft for making Internet Explorer the default browser for all installations of Windows. This, in my mind, puts Steam one legal judgement away from complete ruin. A common Anti-Steam reasoning is what happens to your games when Steam is no more. The answer is always either that Steam is too big to fail or that they have a fully functioning fully tested contingency plan that will magically unlock every single copy of every single Steamworks game in existence as was promised by Gabe Newell somewhere on the internet but nobody can find it at the moment. Either way I'm made out to be the naive one for worrying about the failure of Steam.
Beyond that, when was the last time you saw an advertisment for Steam? Have you ever seen one? How does a company get to be number one in it's field without advertising? EA was demonized by gamers for the way it introduced Origin; by forcing it on everyone who wanted to buy the latest Mass Effect. Somehow none of these people have heard of Half-Life 2 apparently. How many times have you heard someone say that they heard about Steam, looked it up, did some additional research and after careful consideration decided to sign up for an account and purchase a game? How about someone who says that they had never heard of Steam and then they bought a game that required it? Sure they were mad at first but they already bought the game so they had no other choice, but now they love Steam! Many years ago I used to go to Blockbuster to rent movies, then one day I had added charges on my account. I asked about the charges and was told that it had to do with a new policy they had and there was nothing the clerk could do about it. I said I understood and asked if they had a pair of scissors I could use, I then cut up my membership card and left the pieces on the counter and walked out; I have never set foot in a Blockbuster again. Now if Blockbuster had someway of preventing me from ever watching movies again then I would have paid the bogus fine rather than losing out. Once someone becomes a Steam customer how do they leave the service in the event they become disgruntled? Well it's simple, they just forfeit every game they ever bought that is tied to Steam. People wonder why Steam fans get so rabid, well what choice do they have? Either they tell themselves that Steam is great and DRM doesn't matter or they acknowledge that Steam is holding them hostage by their hobby.
So what advantage does Steam hold for publishers? They all know that there are people who will refuse to buy games irrevocably tied to Steam, that there are those who would have bought the game but will pirate it instead due to Steam, so why do it? Well any game sold on Steam has a certain percentage of the net profit taken by Steam before being passed on to the publisher. If all copies of the game require Steam then that percentage is much smaller. If the publisher feels that they can alienate a small percentage of their consumer base and still come out ahead then it is worth it to do so, after all they are in the business of making money. If there is enough backlash to show that the decision creates a net loss then they will drop the DRM.
I had several problems with "Online Activation" DRM and because of that i can't play my games and if you go to their forum and tell them that you used a crack to play their games, they'll ban you on instant.
...well what were you expecting? Mentioning that you used a crack on pretty much any gaming forum of a developer worth their salt is always an instant ban. It's basically rule one of posting in official video game forums.
That's the funny thing about it. If you went to the official forums and announced that you had the game running in Linux, or on an older laptop, you would be peppered with questions from people who want to know how so that they can do the same. Mind you these are the actual requirements for playing, minimum RAM and CPU speed and OS file registration. But announce that you figured out a way to play without the artificial requirement of online activation and you are a filthy stinking pirate who deserves to be attacked by rabid squirrels until you die of gonorrhea and burn in Hell!!