So some people are bringing up that games can have no DRM and still be convenient.
That is obvious.
The best implementation of gaming I have seen (in my opinion) is Humble Bundle.
1. You buy the game DRM-free for a price of your choosing.
2. You can choose to tie them to an account and you can download them from anywhere.
3. You can play them on any computer (PC, Mac, Linux).
4. You can choose whether or not you want to activate them on Steam.
5. You can send them to anyone, and it can be downloaded and installed as many times as you want.
In a perfect world, every game would be released on Humble Bundle.
This is not a perfect world.
Thus I had to draw the line. What can be considered good, and what can be considered bad DRM. I call Steam good. Why? Because it's not perfect like Humble Bundle, but it's damn near close. I can get almost all of the convenience listed above, and feel almost none of the consequences of DRM. Yes, there are still problems with Steam being DRM. For one, I have to install Steam to access Steam games. Another being I have to be logged into Steam at all times to played games (but I can still play offline). I also cannot resell my games and I cannot give them away. However, in my opinion, the advantages of having Steam far outweigh the disadvantages. I love Steam sales, I love Steam cloud, I love offline mode, and I love being able to download and install games with the click of a button.
Thus, my definition of "good" DRM: when the advantages of a DRM service outweigh the disadvantages.
This is of course, subjective. You can all have your very own definitions of what "good" DRM is or just not have "good" DRM at all. Personally, I see Steam as being a very competitive service versus physical media. But that's my own opinon, and your free to judge it how you choose.
