So, let me get this straight - I'll need Steam to play Skyrim? Sorry, Bethesda, you've just lost a customer.

Pretty much.

Well, the last point is actually not true ... as you mentioned, there's the offline mode. If the Steam service is unavailable (which didn't happened for a very long time now), you can play in offline-mode. I don't see a problem with this mode. If Steam can't connect it asks you, if you want to use it, and if you click yes, you can just go on like always.

Aside from that, where is the problem with having to activate the game once?
You don't want to tell me, you couldn't have a connection to the internet on your gaming pc or laptop, do you?

I can understand, if people just don't like to always start Steam first to play the game, but I totally don't understand the "online"-argument. It's not like you have to be online always if you want to play ... you just need to activate the game once. In my opinion that's a very convincing way of copy protection. I actually prefer it very much to changing discs the whole time.
The process of changing a gaming-disc is even longer and more complicated to just start Steam.
(If you only play one game at a time, of course you don't have to change discs. Still there's this annoying noise from the drive.)

I don't get, how people can pass on a game like Skyrim because of Steam ...
Sooner or later you'll have to use some DRM service anyways ... at least if you still want to play games on a pc.

It's quite easy, actually. I don't want Steam on my computer and don't NEED any game that requires it. I need food to live. I don't need PC games. Should PC game-makers continue this trend, I'll find a new hobby.

Easy. Some people wish to protect their legal rights, some are legitimately afraid of loosing access to their game, a few begrudge the system resources holding back fps on older rigs, others won't be able to download 6+gigs due to limited bandwidth, others (who obviously don't post here) have no internet at all. There's even a few who are belligerent over being forced into a Steamworks or nothing situation.

Most of us have no problems with some form of DRM. We simply have problems with the draconian requirements and/or illegality of what Steam imposes for those of use who want to run the DVD version.

Under the part of the law which says I can't be coerced, tricked or forced into accepting a contract and it still being valid.

Really: Software-as-a-service is a valid licence model - in-between corporations, in a business-to-business environment. Both sides have lawyers on their payroll, both gain from it something (usually the software they need, support, software customisation, direct contact to the developers in case of critical bugs and so on on the side paying for the privilege of running it), and both can shield individual employers from legal action. That's fine. Trying to force private customers into accepting the same kind of restrictions without any of the benefits is way out of line.

Sadly, no, we don't. We're doomed to be outnumbered. Whether we like it or not, DD is the future of software distribution and there's no turning back. Retail distribution will eventually die in a few decades, and in the meantime we users will be forced to accept any condition the companies will impose upon us in order to achieve their goals. And no, there is no politician skilled enough to understand a single bit of what we're talking about here, nor anyone concerned enough on what this is all about, nor anyone trustable enough to leave such a matter in his hands. The only way to do something against Valve's policies would be filing a class action, but that's not going to happen anytime soon: there are not enough people out there concerned on Valve's policies. Perhaps on 11/11/11 things will change when users will realize what will be forced upon them, who knows.

You weren't tricked or forced or coerced though. If you don't agree with it, just write a letter to the publisher and I'm sure they'd give you a refund.

Ready my silly scenario again please.

Which silly scenario?? I get confused easily

Todd Howard storming my home with a bunch of strippers.

I think that this anology is very fitting:

We all used to sit at the table and feast together. One day, the greedy publishers who do nothing useful for gaming came in and kicked us all away from the table. Now the publishers sit at the table and demand that we go through them to get any food. Some of us became like dogs, happily doing the publisher's bidding for the measly scraps they would throw. Others left and became as wolves, stealing food whenever they could. A few became like foxes who bide their time and plan ways to re-establish the natural order of gamers and developers with no publishers eating at the feast table. And lastly, many became as stones, uncaring and unneeding of the feast.

Now, to quote Oblivion: "I used to be a dog, but I got better. Not a better dog though. I'm a terrible dog now."

Another point to consider is that a Class Action Suit cannot be brought on by just any group, it has to be a collection of those who are actually wronged. If you never buy a Steamworks game then you have no cause to file suit. Any legal action against Steam, or any other digital distributor, has to be brought on by Steam customers who feel that they were wronged enough to file a grievance.

For as much as I would love to get the legal challenge ball rolling, I would first have to install and use Steam then wait for them to actually shut down my account for reasons that a court would deem unreasonable.

True, we are relatively outnumbered. It's worth noting though that there are at least two like-minded MEPs. That's roughly one million people represented.

It's a shame but they probably have no problem with Steamworks being on their computer and sitting right next to them while they play.

Not true. When I go into a game store, pick out a game, then go and pay for it, it's with the understanding that I am purchasing a copy of the game. Just like if I go into a grocery store, pick out a loaf of bread, then go and pay for it, it's with the understanding that I am purchasing the bread.

If I then go to install it, and it won't let me saying I don't have the right to access it without agreeing to a certain set of terms, I'm being coerced into accepting those terms if I want to use the product I just paid for, for its intended purpose (to play). "If I don't like the terms, take it back" is not a valid response because those terms have no bussiness being there in the first place.

But you are aware that all games nowadays come with EULAs, yes?? It's not as if they've only just been introduced. It's pretty much a given there will be some sort of EULA included. You could always ask the sales people in the shop, if you are unsure.

Who in their right mind would waste hours trying to read eula just to play the game? they simply ignore it.

Just because you don't read it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The point here is steam is but an annoyance. similar to how a trojan horse annoys a user on the pc. that is one of the reasons why people hate steam. by accepting that eula you are accepting that trojan horse.

Doesn't matter, it still has to be stated up front what the terms are before the purchase. Without such requirements, you can add in whatever you want to the terms. THE USER HEREBY AFFIRMS THAT HE AGREES TO TRANSFER THE ENTIRETY OF HIS ASSETS TO CECILFF2 IMMEDIATELY.

But that's not what EULAs do. They say by playing the game you agree to these terms. You have a choice whether or not to agree to them. Your above statement didn't give me a choice. From what I've gathered EULAs will stand up in some courts, but not in others. So it really does depend on where you live whether or not you can ignore them, I think.

Can you return a PC game after you've bought it and opened it?

That's a retail store policy, not the publisher's.

It's a legal manuever to prevent them from being liable in any possible copyright infringement issue.