Developers and publishers have more options than using an implementation of a flawed model. I can’t pretend to know of all of them, but if you assume that your games need to be protected, you do have other options that probably won’t frustrate a paying customer.

After all, how would you feel if you just paid good money for a game that requires you to jump through hoops and give up some privacy, only to see that a cracked version of the game is available that removes those annoyances? Some people use hardware locking or require dongles, but any DRM system is invasive. Imagine how much repeat business you can do when your customer finds out that they are being punished with incredibly annoying DRM in exchange for their money while others can get away without paying for software AND have it easier.

What kind of incentive did people have to continue purchasing music CDs after Sony’s rootkit debacle was made public? No one saw what happened and thought, “Ooh, more for me, please!”

Some companies do well with separate demo and full versions. Others use ad revenue from web games. Still others use regular registration keys. I think that developers will really need to analyze what it is they are trying to do with copyright protection and what they are willing to pay for it in terms of customer goodwill and support costs, among other considerations. Unless you’re actively trying to frustrate paying customers and don’t care about protecting your game, you should avoid DRM since it won’t do what you want.