Imo ist's always a balance (for the dev regarding the 'how much DRM' question). If you concentrate too hard on DRM you're wasting work hours and getting more inconvenient for paying customers. But some devs (legitimately) do want to keep the risk at bay that the latest release gets leaked if their business model uses patreon/ss and therefore some protection is added. But if your game is actually good (like in this case, imo) then it'll attract attention from people capable of cracking it. But if you release older versions (not too old though, half a year for this game are pushing it) then you reduce the risk these people seeing the need....and at the same time he sacrifices the quality of the product by spending time implementing DRM and possibly by taking up resources from the other game functions to run said DRM depending on how he implemented it...
I don't really care, DRM is shit, and a lot of the time it WILL be cracked, because some indie dev won't make a better DRM than the mainstream DRM's like the infamous Denuvo, which have all been cracked or worked around for a while at this point.
The way I see it, the best way to make people buy your stuff is to either make something that downright abuses people that are unable to think for themselves (like the LOK, Pure Onyx or Operation Lovecraft teams) or invest everything in quality (like the Wild Life team, Runey, Octopussy, Konashion and so on), and only one of these has at least a scrap of morality in it.
I think the DRM vs. free-for-all debate on principles will lead nowhere. Yes, nobody likes DRM; yes, DRM is still used almost everywhere; but DRM does not equal DRM. It's the balance of how much do you give for free and how much time do you want to spend on DRM. And the 'right' ratio is purely subjective.
Imo, the dev doesn't spend 'too much time perfecting the DRM' (and it can be broken), but he could be reducing the gap between free and latest release as half a year is quite a lot.