You're actually trying to equate a game to something like Matlab? That's like comparing a Honda Civic to a military tank or a bass fishing boat to an ocean liner. Games, movies and music are commodities. And should have the consumer rights associated with commodities.

I am trying to point out that, with the way EULAs are set up, you are leasing software, not buying one of those egg pet things.
I am not saying what should or should not be the case. I am saying what IS the case, and why it is against the terms of use to give someone your game after you play (at least, as far as digital distribution goes).

Correct. A EULA is a contract. Contracts are regulated by laws and are enforceable, excepting any specific provision that a judge has ruled against.
So while EULAs are not laws, you still must abide by them or get yourself a lawyer.

Well with this kind of philosophy iTune and the other online music seller would still use DRM on audio files and limited online activation for games would be the norm.
and it also means that you have to make sure to never live in a country in which Steam have the good idea of enforcing region restriction.

Limited activation is indeed a terrible idea and NOBODY should ever defend that and to be honest most DRM is pretty nasty and people should be up in arms about it. But to lump Steam which does many things to benefit consumers while still being a form of DRM with other forms of DRM is just not fair in my eyes. It seems like there is just no comprimising until anti-DRMers get EXACTLY what they want even if that means playing only GOGs or a game that sucks and has no DRM just to defend their princables.

You DO know offline mode has been fixed from the previous state of working almost always to the state of ALWAYS working, right? It needs to dial home once a month I think, but my netbook wasn't connected to Steam for 6 months and all Steam games work.
Loading of adverts can be turned off, and I have about 120 games on it and am yet to see a MOD that isn't working, so you really REALLY don't need to turn auto-updates off - still, it's good to have the option, is it not?
Bashing with nothing to actually back it up is a fun thing to do, yes?

That's like if someone who's all time favorite series is Metal Gear Solid but hated Sony enough to refuse to buy a Ps3 because it was too expensive and had many problems they didn't agree with was offered a free ps3 and MGS4 and denied it out of his princables. To me, that is not defending your princables. That is spiting yourself. There's a time and place for princables and a time and place for just being happy that video games exist in the first place.

Then your principles are more fluid than other people's may be. Some would look at that as having 'principles of convenience'. If you only stick to your guns when it's convenient and when it doesn't put you out, what kind of principles do you really have?

Quite the contrary I was simply exaggerating. I have over 140 games on Steam and I will be buying Fallout: NV. While I have no personal problems with Steam there are many others that do. Some of it is pure hyperbole yes some isn't. The regional restrictions for one thing are stupid beyond belief, they do not benefit customers in any way, shape or form. If you are regionally restricted by Bethesda then even if you buy the game from an importer you will not be able to actually play it. There is also the issue of all games being tied to the Steam account. If your account is suspended for whatever reason then the next time Steam dials home it will disable EVERY game you have tied to it. Everything. Even games you bought at retail. That is why people mistrust Steam as it is DRM and when it wants to be it's actually one of the worst kinds of DRM.

New Vegas available for pre-order on Steam today at £29.99.
Available October.
No mention of DRM, but is using the Steam Cloud...
link

As far as video games DRM goes TODAY (not one or two year ago), Steam doesn't really have that much advantage over the other. Most (of course "most" exclude Ubi-drm) games's DRM today have unlimited activation or at least revocation tools.
Of course Steam has the auto-patching and "community-stuff" for those who like that sort of thing but on the other side the others DRM usually don't require you to install a client, use regional restriction or link all your games to a single account.
Nothing better that some good over-generalization to improve the discussion. Lot's of "anti-DRM" are ready to make compromise, heck less than a week ago I bought Alpha Protocol because I decided to trust Sega when they say they will remove the DRM via a patch X months from now and I would buy Vegas if I have the same announcement from Bethesda.
If all editors were simply releasing patch removing the DRM some month after release date I wouldn't mind DRM that much, and I know a good number of anti-DRM who would feel the same, heck I would even accept limited activation DRM if I was sure it was only temporary.

Oh I am sorry then, I am kind of fed up with similar responses to Steam over the boards :-)

EULAs don't tend to stand up well in court. In fact, I'd be amazed if there was any western nation/state that considered them valid. I doubt many publishers would want to risk invalidating what would effectively be every game EULA out there by trying to sue a violator. This is why they tend to stick to establised laws, like copyright.

You'll also get the added benefit of being able to resell the product you bought from store when you're done with it if you never register it in steam.

I find it very unlikey sony will go to someones home and offen them a free ps3 and mgs4.
after hearing one guy won't buy a ps3 and mgs4.
Unless they won a contest.