As mentioned on here, Steam itself is a form of DRM. When you buy a game from Steam, you don't really "own" the game. If you can't sell the game, can you really "own" it? No. In principle, I feel that what Valve is doing is evil. It's just less evil than what other Pro-DRM companies are doing. That's why gamers give them a free pass. But they shouldn't get a free pass. Just because Ubisoft, EA, etc. are more evil, doesn't mean that Valve is good. You just get less evil with Valve.

I don't see how Steam is a net benefit for consumers. You can install your games on as many computers as you like? You can do the same with DRM-free games. And you can resell those if you want.

You have achievements? So what? Xbox 360 does and you can sell your retail Xbox 360 games.

You have friends list? Ditto.

You have free multiplayer servers? Battle.net has that too. And so as long as you aren't dealing with a douchebag seller who keeps using the serial key after selling the game, I'm pretty sure you can buy a used copy of Diablo, Starcraft or Warcraft without a hitch. It's risky to buy those games second-hand but at least you can provided that the seller is honest (this is what feedback ratings on ebay are for).

You don't need to put the disc inside the computer while you play? DRM-free games allow that too (disc check is a form of DRM btw and yes there are retail games out there still that don't even require a disc check). And you can resell those.

Steam has some killer sales at times. I'll give it that. But I don't "get" what's so great about Steam overall. Gamers are doing a disservice to themselves for talking up a company that is committed towards destroying true ownership and consumer rights (first-sale doctrine).

You are comparing weird things here. First, it's only natural that any DRM is worse than no DRM. Seriously dude, how can Steam as DRM is bad because it's worse than no DRM?

Resale of intangible goods is difficult, not to say impossible, to get to work as a system. That is the true for  any Digital Distribution platform. It's inherent in the system, and doesn't make Steam as a means of Digital Distribution any worse than it could be.

And PC gaming isn't console gaming, hence the need for DRM in the first place. If you want achievments, Steam is one of two places you can get it on the PC (GFWL being the other), and for most games it's the only place. It is also the only place where you can talk to all your friends and see what they are playing, invite them or join them easilly no matter what game they are playing, on the PC. Yes, it already exists on consoles, isn't it great that we can now do it on the PC as well?

Battle.net doesn't work for that many games either. Blizzard games only, if I remember correctly.

It's a compromise, they're saying that: Yes, it's sometimes inconvenient. Here's a ton of great features you can get nowhere else on the platform to make up for it.

That is the essence of the Steam DRM. Less intrusive DRM, more focused experience, easier to manage games and a community around it are bonuses you get for shopping legally using Digital Distribution. I'd rather take the Steam DRM than any other DRM on the market.

Steam is bad because it takes away one of the main rights of the consumer (first-sale doctrine).You can talk about how it's supposedly the least evil of all DRMs all you want. But that doesn't mean that it isn't evil. I also disagree that it's the least evil of DRM schemes. Games that only have your standard disc check (that is a form of DRM btw) are less evil than Steam. You can at least sell those games. You have actual ownership over them. That kind of DRM doesn't allow you to make backup copies but I can live with that. Just download a NO-CD crack and I'm good if I absolutely must play it off the hard drive completely. But take away our right to sell our games? That I can't agree with. I'm disappointed in gamers for essentially thanking Valve for taking away one of their fundamental consumer rights and talking them up as if they are the good guys.