uPlay
SecuROM 7
Both of those are a subscription service. You're not buying software (something that is resalable), you're buying rights to use someone else's software. It's effectively what they were trying to achieve with disk activation in the first place.
Now that Microsoft acted, we'll have to see how EA (and others) respond, if at all. Microsoft has effectively thrown a gauntlet down and it will flood technical support with complaints about the game not working on Windows 10. It's going to translate to a lot of refunds and, failing that, a lot of BBB complaints. EA (and others) will be forced to make a decision between pulling the product from their store or removing the underlying DRM. Time will tell...
If it looks like I'm defending DRM, I apologize. I hate DRM as much as the next guy. I'm just optimistic...
Perhaps I've missed the comparison here. When have we bought computer games in the last decade? I can't remember a single one that allowed any online connectivity, and was actually resellable. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but every single EULA I've read through in the last decade has always said that you don't own the software, only the rights to use it. I'm pretty clear on the original Starcraft and Warcraft having that, in the late nineties.
Retro gamers, no; current and future games, yes. Microsoft killing DRM for the sake of security is a massive nail in physical DRM's coffin.
MS is killing physical DRM, but nothing else. They're killing off old Securom based games, because it's a security risk. These things are...not exactly harming DRM.
My point is that MS didn't move to kill physical DRM in any form. What they did was make programs that call home, without any regards for the user, something that their new OS wouldn't natively support due to the security risk. You can still play these games with a no CD crack (assuming you can find a download source). What they've done is finally agree that digital distribution, wherein you actively decide to call home, is the future of DRM. Anything that can fit within these borders (looking at you WB Studios, and your craptastic DRM choices) is still allowed, and realistically with most software being download only what did MS accomplish? They completed the DRM race years after Steam and Origin made physical copies a functional relic.
Those that support DRM still have the ability to put whatever they want into games. Those against DRM still have GoG. The only people MS influenced with this either don't have a decent internet connection (no downloading), or stopped buying games in the early 2000's but still keep up to date on operating systems. I can't really say that either of these demographics exist, because games are a luxury purchase. MS offering the free upgrade to Windows 10, that comes with the price of older games being shut out, isn't exactly a step forward for games. This is why I took issue for you saying Windows 10 is an improvement for gamers.
Our DRM policy seems to be similar. Assuming your customer is a thief, before even selling them anything, is backwards. CD Projekt Red prove that point every day with the Witcher, yet that's not what MS is pushing for. MS is pushing for closing their platform a little bit more, under the auspices of increased security. While I don't want DRM, it isn't a genuinely good thing for gamers to lose history, or a reason to upgrade to Windows 10. I'll agree with your optimism about this being an initial action in ongoing changes to DRM, but I've been around too long to believe that companies like EA and Valve would ever overlook profits to treat customers with respect when they've got a near monopoly.