CharlesGrey: I won't even buy those games with their current DRM, so I couldn't care less if they add even nastier malware to it. Worse DRM only means that more customers will eventually be fed up with all the extra hoops they have to jump through, just to use the software they paid for. So either publishers will be forced to reconsider their stance on DRM, or they'll keep pushing potential customers away, into the arms of alternatives such as GOG. Win/Win, as far as I'm concerned.
KoreaBeat: When this has ever actually happened? It seems to me it would be more accurate to say it will push devs into producing even worse DRM. That's what has happened before.
The DRM just needs to be bad enough to the point that Joe-Average-Gamer reconsiders his plans to buy some fancy new AAA release. The majority doesn't really care much about DRM and mandatory online clients, certainly not as much as most GOG customers do, but everyone has their limits. Securom and similar protection, Ubisoft's Always-Online DRM, the crap MS had originally planned for the Xbone release... Companies have taken hits to their image ( and sales ) before, because they pushed their customers too far. They just need to piss off a number of potential customers that's large enough to have a significant impact on their sales.
But you're right, in the long run it's likely to only get worse. If only because the younger generation of gamers ( and computer users ) is growing up with Steam, Origin, MMOs -- to them, mandatory clients or online requirements for games are "normal", because they never knew any different. And then the next generation will probably grow up with nothing but streamed digital content. :/