Fred_DM: Steam isn't expensive to integrate, and it doesn't annoy the customer.
Tages, SolidShield, SecuROM, StarForce etc. are, and do. just think about what it must cost UbiSoft to keep up the server and support infrastructure for their Uplay and GameLauncher DRM.
Steam centralizes all that without the need for every publisher to have their own activation servers and support teams. Steam also avoids 2 of the most annoying aspects of other DRM systems: limited activations and hardware tie-downs, probably the two DRM aspects that are the most common causes for customers to get in touch with support.
Excactly my stance on Steam.
And in general there is a differnce between DRM and "copy protection". Those two are often used synonymously, so there is a lot of confusion. There is a "good DRM" way that connect a game to a single person via an account (like Steam, or GOG, or Origin, basically everyone). That is convieniant and generally a very good development in recent years. Than there is the "copy protection DRM" which makes sure that only the person that holds the rights to this game can play it. Some don't have this at all (GOG, and I think GG only checks that you are online), some are very liberal in that approach (Origin, Steam) and some take it up to eleven (Ubisoft) and some are pure shit (securom,sometimes Ubisoft).
But I consider all of the above no problem for me anymore, because I do have a constant broadband internet connection (and my backup is via the mobile net with still very impressive speeds). And I remember the time of "disc based copy protection" which was the worst there ever was. I honestly don't care much about "DRM free" anymore, as this isn't 2003 when HL2 came out (and I was furious). As much as I hated Steam before, I must say that it has become a goodsend for PC gaming. There dominance on the PC market is something to be concerned about, but I think Amazon and GG will give them a run for their money in the future.