Years ago, when DIVX was first released (Circuit City's supposed DVD "killer" not the well know video codec), just after it miserably failed most peoples said that something that phone home to let you watch a movie would NEVER... EVER works...
...now fast forward back to today, and look we have plenty of on-line activation DRM that phone home for movies, books, games, and most peoples don't mind them (we were lucky to have DRM mostly removed from music files but that might just be a temporary victory).
Just a because a stupid idea doesn't work today doesn't means it wont in two years... it maybe just need a cuter packaging.
Most media companies dreams about an all-streaming world, and gaming companies are no exception, no more piracy, no second hand sales, no parallel importation, complete control (regional restriction, regional pricing, regional censorship, etc...). For gaming it won't probably be a "per game" monthly cost but probably a per editor, or per service (like with OnLive) but sadly the question is not "if" it will happens the only question is "when".

He pretty much suns up exactly how I feel about the issue as well.

I want to try that DRM but I can only buy games which are using this DRM if they are only $5 or so.

Maybe, but I'm confident that just as the indie developers are now moving in on the market shares vacated by the failures and drift towards consoles of many major publishers, so will there always be someone to profit from the part of the consumer base that are not happy with the "pay to play" concept. So yes, it will probably come, but it will never take over the market. It will simply be one more option for people who are interested in it. Those who are not will have other options.
And just to clarify, in my previous post I took the "pay to play" concept outlined to be on a per game basis.

It will likely hold the majority of the market at some point in the future. It will be where most money are made and people will most likely accept it as the way things are. Most tend to be remarkably fast to voice their dissatisfaction with almost any change, but readily accept it if those in authority stand their ground.
I expect single player game "rentals" directly from the Publisher (or service like Gamespy, Google, Steam or GfWL) on a monthly basis will be fairly accepted as a standard in 5-10 years. I see two different scenarios.
1) You pay a monthly fee to the Publisher and then buy each game.
2) You pay a smaller monthly fee for each game, but no boxed purchase .
It just seems like the direction the whole industry is trying to pull. Yes, indie developers may still be doing the one-time-purchase-you-own-it deal, but they (as a whole) won't have as big an impact as the rest of the industry.

I thought that was just common sense. It's a waste of time and money if (theoretically) it doesn't work.
The ideas are still draconian.
Should be exclusive. Then I wouldn't say a word.
That's basically what happened with Steam. I've come to find most people lack conviction and are all too eager to contribute to fervor. Doesn't matter what it's about. Principles aren't relevant; they just need something to get excited about.

I personally thought his comments along those lines were pretty worthless. It basically amounts to saying that they'd like to do things differently if the world were different from the way it is. Except we don't live in any hypothetical, ideal world, the world is the way it is, and the only choices that mean anything are choices made within the context of the world as it is. It would have been far more interesting to hear someone within the industry address why they think various companies go with specific DRM choices (compared to the many other DRM or non-DRM choices available). Has he observed certain DRM or sales models result in better sales or profits than others? Which ones? Why does he think that is? That's the kind of information that could be interesting to hear, but instead we just got the same useless tripe we've all heard many times before.

Well duh when you put it that way, it is fundamentally common sense.

I don't think that using cracks is necessarily a bad thing, so long as the person in question BOUGHT the game and needed to crack it to MAKE IT WORK because the DRM implementation was that half-assed. It's only an expectation that we as consumers be able to use the product we paid for, unless someone wants their head on a stick for scamming us of our hard-earned US$50-60.
Whatever the case may be, though, I don't like this. If we buy it, then they'll keep doing it. But if we don't buy it, they'll probably scream "ZOMG TEH PIRACY!!!11", or-even worse-it's an otherwise excellent game that just happened to have really crappy DRM slapped on it courtesy of the publisher that will now no longer have any follow-ups because of poor sales.