Read your license for NWN2 again.
There is a huge difference between being able to install it and use it on a single machine and a limited hardware dependent activation. It's simply not the same. As long as I have NWN2 only installed on a single machine that I own I do not violate the Eula... I can uninstall it and reinstall it on another one of my computers without violating the Eula. Now, from a legal point of view even this practice is rather dubious - and if I may say so, impossible to reinforce... after all, of how many cases do you know where a gamer was sued because he had a game running on his desktop AND his laptop. I don't know of a single one, and I've read a lot about software piracy.
Activation is different... I'm pretty sure that ME will still be licensed for only one person, but this time you won't be able to uninstall and reinstall your game an unlimited amount of times on different computers. After you have done it three times, you won't be able to run the game anymore. So the "new freedom" that you now enjoy is no freedom at all. Practically you could ALWAYS install games on more than one computer, because although it's against most Eulas, no one would sue you for it.
Even he admits that the publishers go too far with their protection but no protection at all is just stupid. In all the talking a lot of people miss the point in that the devs are real people with real jobs just trying to make a a fun game for us to enjoy. I'm not so sure about the publishers, the majority of them just look like they want to make as much money as possible and go onto the "next gen" game, but that is a generalization, not all do that.
First of all - publishers too, are real people. There are people involved in this process who have not the slightest bit to do with gameplay or copyright decisions, but who are still involved in the "game-making" process - take for example secretaries, etc. Honestly, I absolutely dislike this kind of black/white dichotomy.
Now to the article. It's hard to say what the author really means with "harsh DRM measures" - what he mentions is measures "that effectively cripple a customer's machine or their ability to enjoy the media on other devices that THEY OWN or control", and here I totally agree with him - see the paragraph above (where I answer to Kalniel). But We don't know what the author thinks about an online authentication... because he does not mention it.
Moreover, and that's why I consider the article as rather questionable, is that what we get here is merely the author's opinion which is based on his own assumptions, but not on facts, since the author displays quite some ignorance when it comes to the topic of software piracy. He shows his whole naivety in the end when he tries to make the reader away of the negative consequences of software piracy. We know from studies (Alain D'Astous et al to name just one study, but there are many more that come to this conclusion), that anti-piracy arguments (and campaigns using these arguments) are widely ineffective.