Please do not equate design decisions with business decisions in the same sentence. As a game designer myself I am highly offended by this.
We're slowly leaving the era of consumer ignorance behind thanks to the availability of information on the internet. A bad business decision, such as DRM, is as damaging to a game's sales as a bad design decision, such as repetitive gameplay. The invisible division between making the game and selling the game doesn't exist in today's industry.
For example, the majority of the educated gaming population doesn't appreciate restrictive DRM software on their titles. DRM software is expensive and has been proven to be completely ineffective against actual piracy. It prevents the uneducated user from backing up their game, however. A Developer who signs a publishing contract that forces DRM onto their game is held accountable by their customer demographic for this decision through a decrease in sales. It may seem harsh or unfair to punish the Developer for this, however that's simply the way the industry is being forced to evolve. It's unfair to the people who buy their game to be subject to both the restrictions of product law and license law and receive the protection of neither. This has forced people to be conscience of the ramifications of their purchase, lest companies like Activision and EA continute to rape the industry.
I've seen many awesome design documents destroyed by suits. Designers don't make games now, suits do. And suits make games for profit, not for fun. The only good in-depth games coming out these days are when the designers and suits are the same people (Stardock and Paradox for examples).
Then the industry will evolve in time. Retail publishing companies like EA Games and Activision are trying to keep up with technology and get their claws into things such as DD, because if DD ever goes mainstream they're no longer needed. DD Allows Independant studios to self-publish and still have access to a wide audience, however it also forces Independant studios to evolve too.
Marketing campaigns, such as the hundred million dollar one launched for Modern Warfare 2, sell games to the mass audience at retail and provides a one-time cash injection at the products launch. Suits make that happen, often to a disasterous backlash such as Modern Warfare 2 which will cause the next title in the series to sell less. Relying on word of mouth and review scores ensures constant sales (see Stardock's early titles) at the expense of the size of the one-time cash injection at launch. Developers make this happen, often creating loyal fanbases (see Blizzard pre-World of Warcraft).
Companies like EA and Activision can't innovate because it costs too much at the level that they operate at and so they're eventually going to kill their franchises off. Look at Tony Hawk, Guitar Hero, Need for Speed, Spore, Call of Duty, Medal of Honour, etc. Companies like Stardock, however, are able to innovate and create platform specific titles that appeal to niche markets and achieve financial success and happy customers on a smaller scale. Profits or loyal fanbase. This is the choice Developers today are foced to make when signing deals. It's not fair, however as I said, this is the way the industry has been forced to evolve.