Invasive DRM is BAD for customers and therefore BAD for companies

I argue that DRM is BAD for companies and BAD for customers, and it is only good for pirates and for DRM companies.

Let's assume you can afford buying the game, and you are willing to pay for it being a conscious gamer knowing how important it is to support the developers. What would you do in the following scenarios?

1st Scenario:
Game does not have DRM for single-player, or LAN multiplayer. For Internet multiplayer, you need to register your key. You can install it as many times as you want, whenever and wherever. Pirated version is the same, except that you will not be able to install the patches as they come out and you will not be able to play online (at least with legit users, which is likely going to be the majority of online players).

2nd Scenario:
Game has non-intrusive DRM, such as a one-time activation within a couple of days of installing it, or a key or a disk-check. The pirated version does not require typing a key, or keeping a disk in the drive, but you will not be able to install the patches as they come out and you will not be able to play online (at least with legit users, which is likely going to be the majority of online players).

3rd Scenario:
Game publisher treats you as a thief, keeping the leash short and tight. You cannot install the game that you paid for more than a certain number of times. You need to activate each copy you installed before you can launch it. They keep your game-saves hostage on their own servers, which are also required to even play the game, and these servers are likely to go down for hours, let it be scheduled maintenance or unexpected down time. You are more likely to end up not being able to install and play the game that you paid for, whenever and wherever you want. A few years after your purchase, the company may close its doors, together with its activation/savegame servers, and you will loose your game and all your savegames. The pirated version can be installed anytime, anywhere. It does not require an online connection, so you can play offline (e.g., during a long flight), and it saves the games to your local disk, therefore you can back up your savegames, and if you reinstall the game to a new computer that you purchase in the future, you can restore your savegames and continue playing. The pirated game is always yours to keep and install and play whenever and wherever, even if the company is no more. However, you may need to wait for a bit when a patch is released, until someone releases a cracked version, and you will need to look for non-official servers that support this copy to play online, which may be a bit painful.

I don't think you need to be a genius to be able to tell in which case you'd say "enough is enough, f this", and go for an illegitimate copy, even if you want to get the original copy and support the developers. Everything in moderation! I know that there are game developers that sell their games without ANY DRM (Scenario 1), and they still DO sell enough to make a living. I also understand that a company would like to use a non-intrusive DRM, at least to keep the "casual" pirates straight (Scenario 2). As long as I can install and play the game wherever and whenever I want, it's ok with me. But intrusive-DRMs (Scenario 3) that TRY to prevent hardcore pirates from doing what they do, DO fail anyway, and this leaves them as being only a PITA for the people who actually paid for the game. Frankly, pirated versions of games with such intrusive DRMs tend to be relatively more hassle-free than the original game!!! So, would you like to pay to be harassed by an invasive-DRM and potentially loose your game and savegames in the future, or would you rather go for a smoother free ride instead, even though you know that you will not be supporting the company that brought you that game. Then again, do you really WANT to support such a company? A-ha!

And if you do not have the funds to pay for the game, you will not buy the game no matter what, so the developers are indeed will NOT be loosing money if you played a pirated copy. Yes, ethically you should not be playing a game that you cannot afford, but I think in this case letting such a person play a pirated copy is a future investment for the company, since the gamer would get to like this company's games and therefore the company, and when s/he has the money in the future, will be willing to spend it to support them. Because the alternative is that, not being able to play games, they may not become gamers and therefore will not buy games when they have the money to be able to do so. Yes, I know this sounds unbelievably unrealistic and idealistic, but believe me, it is real! Only if the idiotic company-heads could see it, too, instead of listening to the unrealistic and made-up stories told to them by DRM representatives!

The funny thing is, this is nothing but history repeating itself. This already happened in music industry. They said pirates were pirating music so they used DRM. It did NOT work (actually failed miserably). They do not use DRM anymore, and somehow they still make money. Hmmm; interesting. So, what happened to all those pirates that were stealing their music and preventing them from making money?

The fact is that, MOST of the people are nice people, who are aware of importance of supporting the source of their entertainment, let it be music, or movies, or games. This means, majority of the people who are willing to pay for an entertainment medium will do so, whether it has DRM or not, and more likely if NOT!

So, the bottom line is, assuming conscientious gamers are present in our society (which they DO)
No DRM = Good for gamers = Good for developers/publishers, BAD for pirates and BAD for DRM companies
Mild DRM = OK for gamers in most cases = OK for developers/publishers, OK for pirates and still good for DRM companies
Intrusive DRM = Horrible for gamers = BAD for developers/publishers! = GOOD for pirates, good for DRM companies