I only have a handful of games on my Steam account, and whenever possible, I pick up physical copies of games, preferably without excessive copy protection. Steam has improved quite a bit since its inception, and the service does have its advantages, but the DRM and lack of physical media are still a major turnoff. I prefer knowing that I'll still be able to reinstall and play a game a decade or so from now, without having to rely on activation servers that might no longer exist.
For being a digital distribution service, their prices are not all that competitive either. Without having to pay for physical media, packaging, and retail space, they should be able to charge less while making more profit. Instead, their prices are typically higher than those found in stores, with the exception being some of their weekend deals and other sales. It's pretty bad when you can go to a site like Newegg, and have a physical copy of a game shipped to you for significantly less than you'd pay through Steam, even for titles developed by Valve themselves. With the possible exception of those occasional sales, its simply not worthwhile from a value perspective to buy games through Steam.
As for the resale of physical copies, I see little against it. The vast majority of my games were bought new, and I don't sell games I've played, though I have bought some pre-owned older titles. It's often difficult to find new copies of games that are no longer sold in stores, and if someone feels they no longer have any use for a particular game, they should be able to sell or give it away. I can certainly see how it could affect sales if a large number of people sell their copies of a game shortly following its release, but this is something the developers can reduce by providing their games with good replayability and continued support. Expansions, add-ons and multiplayer are just some of the ways developers can curb the immediate resale of their games.

Well, you're calling me a jackass, and yet you are the one getting personal and resorting to attacks, which in my opinion makes you the one coming off as a jackass.
But I digress...
I associate buying a game used with piracy because they are the same thing to a developer. Neither one gives the developer any money. I am not saying a person buying a used game is the same as a pirate, and if you took it that way that's you looking for something to be offended by.
As for consumer rights and such, I agree with all that, so I have no idea what you're being so angry about on that score.
And I don't have an problem with you disagreeing with my opinion, I would assume most here would, which is part of why I think it is an important issue. I do have a problem with you taking is SO personally and being so angry about it. There is a difference between passionate debate, which I enjoy, and being pissy and resorting to name calling because you don't like my opinion.

The only problem I have with used games is the shops that sell them. They knock $5 off the price, offer just enough discount to tempt people to NOT buy the new copies that do support the developers and then pocket the massive difference between trade in price and resale price

i remember buying a game and one year after it was released, i asked an EB games what they give me for it (Didn't bring it with me, as it was just curiosity) and they told me $3, and brand new they were still charging $90

And preowned ones for $85?

I can see that, but I'd hope the developer would see the benefit in a person buying a used copy of their game. If the person who bought it likes it enough, they could end up purchasing future titles from that dev. A person illegally downloading is less likely to buy anything at all.
Unfortunately this could be argued both ways.

Wha..?
Even if I don't like the way softwares install themselves on Windows, I don't understand why you would have to "hunt through your drawers". I mean, even a 5-year old child could launch a game using the start menu.
And even if you don't use the start menu for a certain reason (custom installs maybe) you can make shortcuts on the desktop, or just in a drawer available directly on the desktop.
Again, I don't understand your point here. You prefer to have to launch an app, let it connect itself (if it works), maybe even update itself, and then launch another app (a game) with it?!?
And I wonder why Steam is so popular... People accept and prefer (and pay for) nonsenses than logical functionning... sick. sad. world.
Edit: oh, and just one more thing: technically, you've never even 'started' buying games from Steam, as already explained in this thread.

CD's, he doesn't like hunting through the drawers for the CD's to play them.

Oh, I see. Well, in that case, no-CD patches are his friends.

They are technically illegal though.
Or is it just in breach of the EULA? Either way it has a "Bad monkey, big smacks" vibe that some people seem to be affected by. Me, I've given them my money and thats the end of our transaction

I agree. If they have my money, I've considered it this: I have a physical copy of their media. Their moral right to tell me to do anything with that media ends at the point where they get my money, because at that point it is my physical copy of the media. Not on their terms; not on MY machine.
The DMCA can go jump out a window. That, or DRM can become irrelevant/useless. Both are equally wonderful outcomes.
As for used games. I play a lot of games on consoles they don't make games for anymore. I buy used out of necessity. Outside of that, it depends on the game, price and the developer.

Just to set the record straight, I am a jackass, although asshole, dick, wanker, and quite a few other less than polite epithets are also suitable. I personally consider being called any of these things to simply be a statement of the obvious.
Choosing to simply not buy a game because it sucks, isn't the kind of game one prefers, or isn't as appealing as other games also falls into the category of not giving the developer any money. For that matter, so does not giving developers free reign to pillage our bank accounts as they see fit. Unless the developer has some legitimate claim to money, saying that actions which withhold money from them is wrong is absolutely meaningless. Additionally, holding that developers have any claim to money from second-hand sales is basically saying that a large chunk of property rights, both as they currently exist under the law, and as they've existed for thousands of years as societal mores, should simply be stripped away so that a very small group of people can make a bit of additional money (although not really). It's the implication that my property rights and those of every other video game purchaser should be stripped away, and that our desire to maintain and utilize these rights puts us in the wrong, that makes your earlier statement offensive.
Not really seeing how you agree with me on consumer rights, as you seem quite ready to strip them away whenever it means that developers might be able to make a few extra bucks.
Who ever said I was taking any of it personally? I find your position offensive to various rights I think are important, as well as being completely irrational, and sometimes it feels good to just let loose on opinions like that. As for passionate debate, we already had a rather lengthy one on this exact matter in another thread, in which you put forth no arguments I'd consider particularly rational and also demonstrated what I can really only call willful ignorance regarding factual matters surrounding the issue (specifically the legal status of ownership of copies of copyrighted works, and the legal status of reselling such works). Given this, trying to logically deconstruct your position to engage in debate about it isn't something that really struck me as worthwhile.
But despite all this arguments about this matter of been running through my head for much of today, so I might as well take a short bit of time to point out your error in thinking that stopping used game sales would result in developers getting any more money from their work. In our previous discussion I didn't really consider this a particularly salient point, as it's a quite weak one when compared to other points on this matter, but as you seem to be quite stuck on this particular facet of the matter I might as well address it now.
The flaw in your thinking stems from a failure to recognize the obvious fact that people have limited money to spend. This is particularly true for those trying to save money by buying used, and those trying to recoup money by reselling their games. Additionally, people have a fairly fixed disposable income that they're willing to set aside for entertainment. The result of this is that money spent on used games basically goes right into the pool of someone's disposal income, and from there likely goes directly back into games. The overall result of used game sales is a complete wash for those selling games. Stopping used game sales doesn't result in more money being spent on new games, it only results in customers being able to get less from the limited amount of money they have to spend. On a more localized level it may result in some asymmetry in new sales between games longer games and games with replay value, and games that are 5-10 hour one shot wonders, but even here if one were unable to resell these games then that would change the overall effective price of the game, and thus the value and people's purchasing choices, and would ultimately probably end up still being a wash.
And in case you're about to question why, in light of this, there's anti-resale rhetoric coming from sections of the videogame industry, look at where most of that rhetoric is being directed and what is actually being said. Companies aren't trying to stop used game sales, they're engaging in saber-rattling to try to get the middlemen to give them a cut for doing absolutely nothing.
Now, I personally consider all of this absolutely irrelevant in the face of the whole consumer rights and property rights angle on the matter, but hopefully this will shake you off of the idea that stopping used sales will actually benefit developers in any way (although I'm not holding my breath on that).

I've taken what you are arguing and put it into more concrete terms to show you just why people are disagreeing with you. Bear with me.
Let's say I own Ford. You buy a brand-new Ford for $20,000. You drive it for a while but later sell it for $15,000. I hear about the sale and come to see you about it. "That car cost us a lot of money and man-hours to design and produce", I say. "People like you are taking profits away from the car industry by decreasing the sales of brand-new cars. Ford deserves a share of the profits from your sale--after all, it was our company that made that car and our time and effort that went into every inch of it; you didn't have to do any of that, you just collected money for our hard work, depriving us of a sale in this tough economic climate, without giving us anything in return!"
Is it acceptable for me to ask you for money from the car sale which Ford did no extra work for? Is a car so radically different from a video game just because one is "creative expression" and the other merely a vehicle?

The problem with that analogy is that the car is a physical item, while the games are not. And while the car is actually sold as a tangible product, only a license, or "the right to play" the game is sold.
The actual game has never changed hands, it's still held by the original owner (it's publisher/developer). A better point of discussion would be to look at how games are treated differently to that of music CDs or movie DVDs.
Why is it acceptable to sell second hand music CDs/movie DVDs, but not games?