Explain to me why you are completely ignoring the EA example. EA threw out some pretty crappy DRM on top of Spore, got a lot of flack for it, and then released Sims 3, (shortly after the event), followed by DA and ME2 all with simple disc checks and the options (it's still an option) to grab an online account and get more content for additional moneey. People voted with their wallets, were not silent about their rejection of DRM and guess what, EA is not using the OA plus limited install limit on their retail products anymore. This is a real life recent example that completely contradicts that article and what you say. I've not seen any metric that suggests DA and ME on PC was a failure or a loss for them. Do you have that data?
I don't think it was lack of sales that made them do that. I think they just didn't like the adverse publicity and the installs thing was not exactly a big thing for them. Unlimited vs 1 has NO effect on piracy, second hand sales or whatever they want to control. The DRM in general only annoys second hand customers, you can get more installs.
Ubi is in a different position. Its either Online or Not online. They can't 'tone it down' and if it works like they claim they probably wont.
Thats why I conveniently ignored your example.
Edit: And after rereading the last page, Im not even sure what we are aruging about anymore. My Psotion: Ubi seems to think their DRM works, its difficult to tone down without completly redoing the entire system (thats a guess btw). The reaction from the public probably can't change anything unless its apparent they would make money without the DRM. Which leaves 2 possiblitys:
1) They keep the DRM since they can't remove it, it 'works' (they say) and they can still sell lots of games
2) They make no money so they drop PC development altogether.
Lets not also forget that DRM costs money. Apparently SecuROM costs PER DISK SOLD. Large selling franchises are not a great place to put DRM unless its proven (and someone has done the numbers).
