Shows the same thing in US dollars as well. Apparently the list hasn't updated from yesterday when they were all under 10.

One thing is for certain in the business world at least. Money talks.
By all means, I don't love Steam either. Although I'm giving them a big plus for finally fixing accessibility to games while not connected to the internet, and without having to plan ahead. You can now simply click "go offline" on the login screen. The only but is that games that are updating, or shows as updating, won't launch - a known bug in the system for quite some while.
Their 1$ = 1€ stunt also lost me as a recurring customer, with the exception of promos. I generally don't buy anything unless it's at least 50% off the original asking price. The only exceptions to that this year is Trine and Torchlight.
I just find it funny that zealous anti-Steam people will again and again bring up the "what if"-arguments. It's strange even, there are certainly numerous better arguments against using Steam that I can agree with. But claiming that Steam should be shunned because of the highly unlikely event of the service shutting down for good on a very very short notice falls short - it's unreasonable and unrealistic knowing Valve and Steams powerful position in the DDS world.

Certainly. DRM is an access control system. It is, in design and function, a section of code embedded in media files and software or otherwise required for legal use of the aforementioned products. Because DRM is tethered to products, either through embedded code or required external software, it is not intended to be removed, as doing so would remove its protection. Furthermore, DRM must either execute during routine use of a product or must be designed to not be stripped from product code. Whether or not DRM can be removed by users is outside the scope of its design, as general computing systems are vulnerable to unlicensed user modifications.
DRM is intended to protect intellectual property by limiting user access with the hope that this limitation prevents users other than the licensee from using products. This intent is important, as a product cannot be DRM unless it is a system (or part of a larger, general system) specifically designed to protect IP and reduce piracy.
DRM is not necessarily evil or obstructive. Traditional DRM has limited use in detrimental ways, such as the old DRM-enabled music sold via iTunes, which makes poses an obstacle to use of the product. DRM may be less offensive, or designed to not inconvenience the user, and therefore can protect content without visibly reducing usability.
Certain systems, such as copy protection and certain gated download managers, do not qualify as DRM because they are not true access control systems and do not meet the above criteria. Additionally, something that inconveniences the user is not necessarily DRM, nor must a system be invasive or obstructive to be DRM.

I prefer a much simpler definition:
DRM: Types of copy protection that I dislike
Not DRM: Types of copy protection that I'm okay with

Oh you!

DRM doesn't have to be present for the entire duration of the use of the software that it is protecting. If it is required to be present at install then it has successfully controlled your rights to you having that software; it being present thereafter doesn't matter.
As you have had to have your digital rights managed at the install stage, any successive run of the application is guaranteed to be a legal use because you had to be of a legal purchaser in order to install it.
Some DRM does check on every usage, like SecuROM and CD checks, and like how Steam must be used to play, but these are not the only types of DRM. DRM can be used at install only.
GOG requires you to have purchased the game for it to be available to you, but doesn't need anything to install it, patch it, play it. GOG is DRM-free.
Impulse, if required for install, is a form of DRM, albeit only a very light form.

A custom installer is DRM? I don't follow.

A similar example would be Microsoft's WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage).
1) It requires to check for legality of the copy of Windows in order to install it.
2) It requires to check for legality of the copy of Windows in order to apply updates to it.
3) It does not have to be checked every time you use Windows.
The only difference being that WGA is not a installed client, but an authentication server process.
WGA is DRM.

It checks your credentials to allow install, doesn't it? At least, so I gather from posts here.

It is a combined downloader/installer. You need to run it to download and install software, but it does not verify user rights when installing software.
iTunes checks user accounts when downloading DRM-free music. You cannot download DRM-free music from iTunes without downloading Apple's application and using it to acquire your purchases. Is it DRM, then?

You can move iTunes music to another computer and play it without iTunes being on it.
I can't move Sins to another computer and play it without Impulse being on it.

Not quite as concise as I'd hoped for (I guess that's my fault for not including "concise" in my request), but thanks nonetheless for providing that definition. Now, I'll state first that it's not my intent to start quibbling about definitions, but please humor me while I point out a few places where my own definition differs; I'll get to the primary point i wanted to make shortly.
First, I wouldn't consider it necessary that the code execute during the routine operation of a product. For example, there have been a few flavors of Securom that only use online activation upon installation (or upon a hardware change), yet I'd still consider that DRM. Similarly with the already mentioned example of Windows activation. I'm also not too keen on including intent in the definition, as that tends to make things far too nebulous; I generally prefer to simply look at what something does as opposed to what the purported intention of it is. Additionally, I think a key part of what defines DRM is that it is extraneous to the function of the product. For example, having to connect to a central server when playing online multiplayer on that server would not be DRM, while having to connect to that server for single-player or LAN play would be DRM, as in the two latter cases connecting to the server is extraneous to the function of the product.
But as I said earlier, it's not my intent to quibble over definitions. The point I wanted to make and illustrate was that you have a definition for what DRM is, I have a slightly different definition for what it is, as does korell, bansama, Lucibel, and probably most everyone else on this forum. There's plenty of overlap in those definitions, but there's also some differences, and it's from those differences that the "it's DRM", "No, it's not!" bickering comes from. This is a problem that will always be around when you have a term that does not have a clear, concise, well-established definition. For this reason, statements such as "X is DRM" and "X is not DRM" are rather silly, as such statements will carry different meanings for everyone, and thus don't really convey anything meaningful. Instead of just applying the broad label of "DRM" to something (or trying to refute the use of that label) it's far more productive to simply state what something actually does then let people individually decide which of their own labels applies.

This is a reasonable statement. It benefits us as it also circumvents the stigma of the word "DRM." Rather than introducing a debate with strong prejudice (announcing something as DRM is likely to elicit condemnations, regardless of that thing's function), your tactic attempts to analyze systems individually, based on real-world application.
I was under the impression that the community had arrived at some sort of consensus regarding the meaning of "DRM." Formal explanations of DRM exist, although heated disagreement remains.
It was unwise of me to assume that people would reconcile differences of opinion with such incompatible perspectives on the nature of DRM, let alone debate its merits and flaws.

No, that wouldn't change anything in the way we use the product we are buying after the download is over, just eliminate a choiche on how we download that product.
You're a bit hang up on the download process and keep on failing to realize that's what you can and can't do (or have to do even if you don't want to) once the download is over that matters...

Rather than tell me I'm wrong, please demonstrate the flaws in my overall argument.
Also, please address the issue of Windows Live Essentials.