Any system that can run unsigned code is trivial to exploit to play pirated software, and no operating system that only ran signed code could be successful ...

In my opinion, software developers who are focused on producing comercial solutions to individuals (like videogame developers) need to consider that the PC is a platform which will always have high piracy and they need to consider a business model which doesn't require people to buy software.

Web application developers like Google and Facebook have created a business model where they sell a service (advertizements that target you) to a client (small to large companies) where you don't need to pay for anything for them to be successful. In contrast, Blizzard developed World of Warcraft and could easily give away the client application because the game is on their server and you have to pay to have access to it. A Hybrid model hasn't really been tried that I know of, but I would be interested to see how accepting people would be of a free FPS/TPS game that made its money by selling 15 to 30 second advertizements between matches ...

Your post has highlighted the flaws in the current approach, as well as why it's just wrong headed.  The DRM approach has resulted in an environment where the value of the pirated version of a game is actually greater than the legitimate copy, due to the various restrictions imposed on legitimate buyers. 

The solution, however, is not to keep applying the stick over the carrot, because further reducing the value of the legitimate product is not the way to go.  Rather, the solution should center on making the legitimate copy worth more than the pirated version by increasing the former's value, as opposed to (attempting to) decrease the latter's.  You know, build software around the explicit expectation that it will be pirated, but offer something extra to the fellows who are willing to give you their money. 

Piracy has become incredibly easy for anyone with any computer savviness, and therefore must be accepted as a reality of the market, no matter how wrong anyone may think it is.  Hence, notions of right and wrong aside, the developer has to offer a convincing argument that the real deal is better, at which they have largely failed up to now.

they don't do it for their OS, why would they bother with other people's software?

Microsoft has no financial gain in protecting Windows from piracy. Microsoft does not bother with anything that has no financial gain and that's it.

The succes of the windows platform is also thanks to it's own system getting pirated. If Microsoft would stop piracy of it's OS (or make it way more difficult then it is now, and they do have the tech for that), then most those users who refuse to pay or are not financially able to would migrate to Linux which is free. It is fair to assume that most pirates are extremely capable of handling software better then most people on this earth and are the people who come around other peoples houses to fix pc issues. If they started recommending Linux to them, MS would be badly hurt.

Linux may have a poor reputation for the poor OS it was 10 years ago, but nowadays the linux community is extremely professional and well funded by companies like IBM and Google. Linux offers basicly the same thing as Windows does and is flying towards becoming bigger. Multiple hardware companies are starting to see that too and the number of official drivers for Linux is growing immensly.

Conclusion, I am going to make the following statement: MS only benefits from piracy. It made their OS what it is today. There is no denying that piracy makes up for a huge loss, but tthat's being compensated by the huge gain they have off keeping Windows on systems that would have looked for a cheaper solution.

It's hard enough to fight piracy on a closed platform, trying to do it on an open one like the PC is all but impossible, especially with games that are not online.

This. 

Also,  put something phisycal into the box, to make it more valuable than just the data itself. Like collector editions, but without that nonsense part of asking extra $10 for posters, and figures.

Just as cinemas, or musicians' live concerts make the paying version more appealing than piracy. 

The point is to make piracy A. Harder, B. Worse than owning the game. There are many types of games which do not yet translate to an online subscription model very well. Single player games just aren't as easy to protect and therefore they have suffered whilst the online play model has flourished. I do get that, but im not an online gamer, I play single player. If people have to mess around with their Windows 7 DirectX installation and hack that to get a pirated game working then only a few people would be willing to do it. Right now people have it easy because the copy protection is built on top of Windows and it often fails the people whom they are paying customers. However building it into the DirectX11 installation and the video cards themselves would be seamless but difficult for most to crack.

Good OP Squilliam.

Pirates are killing PC gaming. It's too easy. Why should I pay for stuff I can easily download for free? I only buy X360 games because my X360 isn't modded, but I never buy any PC games any more. I feel like a thief.

You are a thief!!!