That's nice and all, but most games have much more invasive DRM yet they still get pirated. What stops someone from hacking the game to not display their name and to also never check in with the server?
I think their point is "we've left it loose because we trust you".
They say their demos will automatically become the full version if they can't find a Puppygames server on first run. You don't _need_ to hack the game, if you're so inclined to get it for free they've made it easy for you.
They're encouraging a culture of trust between you and them, in the hope you'll thank them for it and actually pay for the game. Not a bad tactic considering some of the piracy figures indie devs have cited. At the end of the day they realise it's more beneficial to keep their paying customers onside rather than slightly inconveniencing those who are going to pirate it anyway.
My point is that if your DRM is going to be so minimal anyway, why bother? It doesn't seem like this approach is likely to convince very many people to buy the software who wouldn't otherwise, and it surely takes time and resources to set up and run.
I think it plays on the psychology of concession. If you make me a concession then I'm more likely to do you a favour.
They're saying, "We've made DRM, but we don't want to inconvenience our paying users, so the DRM will be incredibly forgiving and infact can be easily circumvented by someone with little technical skill".
I think their potential customers would look at that and be more inclined to buy the games, because it appears they've been done more of a favour when a company cuts back on DRM, even at the expense of their potential income, as opposed to if they simply released the game for free.
