Good job completely failing to address any of my points.Hyper: Mostly because a lot of those industry big-wigs are lying through their teeth :p
I was not aware Bill Gates came out against it, but Gabe Newell of Valve is a pretty good example of the PR side of things: Steam is the most prevalent and popular DRM model out there. So yes, it combats piracy by creating greater value through services, but it is still an activation model DRM that ties it to a user.
Apple is also a REALLY bad example to use: They only got rid of DRM on music after people basically got fed up with it, and they still make it hard to really use anything but itunes with an ipod. And, last I checked, ibooks is a DRM model that means you can't really use any e-readers (one of the reasons the US DoJ is on them for the collusion and e-book price fixing). But either way, Apple is going for something different that is basically the same problem: They want to tie you to a product line. In fact, their approach is similar to Steam in that regard (just a lot more excessive). That being said, we might get lucky and they'll decide to patent DRM and then sue every company that ever tries to use it again because Steve Jobs brought it down from the mountain top all those years ago (and they just happened to remember to file a patent last week...).
Stardock might also be a bad example. They are great at making the games they make, but they target niche genres. So, as mentioned, DRM decreases the value of a game in a consumer's eye (to a degree), and a drm-free copy of GalCiv2 might make someone want to try it more. Whereas a more popular genre/game might go the other way (if they see an easily pirated version, they'll get it). Stardock mostly has older people with jobs as their target demographic, whereas the big publishers target teens and college kids. Also, Stardock never actually DID DRM-Free (you had to register for patches and the like), but that is another aspect of Wardell's PR :p. Stardock were (and still are) fans of the "You can get the game DRM free. But if you want any support whatsoever, you have to opt in to our totally optional DRM model" angle.
CD Projekt are the real question marks here. And even they are a bit disengenuous. GoG has DRM (a very light form, but still DRM). And most of what they did that started them on the path was actually to combat piracy in the form of bootleg copies, NOT cracks online. Basically, people were buying bootleg copies for cheaper, and CD Projekt offered a better product for a bit more money. The difference being: The default state of the consumer was still "I want to buy this" not "I want to steal this". As for these days: I love CD Projekt, they are my favorite publisher/dev/whatever they count as. But the "No DRM" thing is pure PR with them, and is really just a way to build up hype. This is most evident in when they tried to sue the pants off the pirates and then backed down when they got bad PR.
I don't think anyone (except the crazy bastards at Ubi) will disagree that "intrusive" DRM is detrimental to sales. The question is: How much DRM can we use before enough people care? Because they still want to stop the casual pirates (your aunt playing The Sims, not your teenage son playing Quake).