No, I'm not saying its OK, I'm just saying it is a sound business decision to give your clients what they want, just as much as it is to give the consumers what they want. I don't agree with it, but I do understand it and it is pointless to fault Valve/Steam for it when the reality is, it is the publishers who wanted this. They do have options that don't include DRM, but they continue to choose the one that does have DRM. That's not Valve's fault, it is the fault of the publisher who continues to choose DRM. If Valve hadn't come up with Steam, someone else would have done it, since that is what the industry demanded, so why blame Valve or Steam when they are not the source of the problem, just a symptom of it.
EDIT - Actually, considering that Valve is also a publisher, I guess you could say they are also one of the sources and just Steam is the symptom.

You could criticise them for being complicit in it. Sure if they stuck to their guns and refused to implement certain less than desirable business practices they may not make quite as much money, but they'd be doing the right thing. As GOG.com are - and we love them for it. And they probably don't make *as* much money because of it, and don't have as many titles to offer because of moron publishers being scared of what they might consider a radical approach to digital distribution. Nevertheless it's fair enough to attack Valve for what they do just as much as it's OK to praise GOG.com for doing the decent thing.

Not so, there are only small differences between GOG and Steam in terms of what they aim to do.
I would imagine that GOG would like to have as many older games as it can for sale on this site. Given it has relatively recent games on here as well as much older titles, I would suggest that they do not want to be a niche retailer, but the leading digital distribution site. The potential catalogue available is quite staggering after all.

That particular game does not have any additional DRM added to it, other than Steam itself, which the publisher was quite aware of when they chose to use Steam as a distribution platform. If they really cared to have their game DRM free, they had other options, but they chose to use Steam anyway. The same is true of those indie developers, if they really wanted to keep their games DRM free, they could have gone to Impulse or some other outlet to sell their games. They could have even removed the "Steam must be running to play" requirement from their games, which we know is already possible and is done with some of the game available on Steam, but they didn't. Again, not Steam or Valve's fault, but the publisher's.
BTW - Long before GOG and Steam had Second Sight, it was on GameTap, which one could argue is worse than Steam in its DRM model.
I disagree. GOG is clearly targeting the "retro games" (for want of a better word) market, while Steam is obviously targeting the new games market, while still maintaining a few "discount bin" type games. GOG is essentially an antiques store to Steam's Wal*Mart.

"Welcome to Steam. Get your shit and get out!" :-D

Speaking of more "WE'Z KILLED TEH DRMZ!!! YAY UZ!!!", I saw this today:
New Stardock Tech 'Throws Goo on DRM,' Allows Gamers to Resell Downloaded Games
I can't wait for the onslaught of pro and anti DRM comments. Again.

Where's the greeter? You can't have a Wal Mart without a greeter. :(

Unreal Tournament 2004, Sensible Soccer 2006, Colin McRae Rally 2005. Antiques? Hardly.
GOG may not stock new games, but they will be trying to expand their catalogue as far as they go, therefore intending to be as far away from "niche" as possible. They are niche now, only because they are still growing. As each year passes, more games are possible additions.
Steam's new games (when I still checked, feel free to correct me), are overpriced for the UK market. I have three dedicated games retailers in my city (Newcastle), which usually will mean I can get a boxed copy for less than steam.

You're being way too literal, it was just an analogy. What do Steam's prices have to do with any of this?

An analogy it may have been, but I was just trying to show how GOG is only niche for the moment, and is looking to become a bigger player in the market (to make lotsa cash of course!) and that "antique" was a poor choice of word.
Steams prices were to counter the argument that steam is all about new games, and I was suggesting (in a rather poor way perhaps) that if it was trying to compete with other places that sell PC games, it should have a competitive pricing policy. The retail outlets in my city have to compete with each other, as well as having some measure of competition with online retailers. These are Steams direct competitors, and given it has a digital distribution model, it should be able to provide lower prices and better availability than its competitors, but I'm not sure that it does.

I never meant to imply that Valve's influence was equivalent to that of Apple, but to say that Valve has no influence at all is simply disingenuous. The amount they can influence a publisher or developer would also naturally depend on just who they were dealing with; they probably won't have much influence with the likes of EA, but with smaller publishers and developers they could probably negotiate terms quite easily. Of course, the real litmus test on the entire matter is to look at Valve's own games and see whether there are region restrictions and regional prices on those. Anyone who uses Steam or owns games made by Valve want to comment on this?
Upsetting the publisher? Negotiating contracts is a fundamental part of pretty much any major business; I don't really see any serious company throwing a temper tantrum because the folks at Steam brought the issue of region restrictions and regional prices to the negotiating table. Also, I already stated that from a business perspective it's hard to blame them if their actions are simply motivated by maximizing their profits. Market segmentation is a standard business practice, and its application in this case is really nothing more than a natural result of the asymmetries in the global economy as it currently exists, but that's an entire issue in itself that goes beyond the scope of this discussion. However, despite all this, it's still possible to fault them from the position of a consumer, in the sense that Steam's choices decrease the value of their games to some people, or in the sense that some people simply don't want to support business practices that they don't agree with from an ethical or moral standpoint. If it's enough of an issue for people this will result in lost sales, and Steam will ultimately be supplanted by another company that is more in tune with what the market wants. But only time will tell how that matter plays out.
Well, I'll first wait for an answer to my litmus test above before saying anything with regards to what Valve actually wants. What's of interest, though, is that making games unavailable in certain regions does indeed seem to run contrary to sound business decisions, so one has to wonder just what is motivating the decision.

Agreed. This is what I'm going to do with every game from now on that I don't get from GOG. DRM has wiped me out as a customer for new PC games.
Considering I don't even own an X-Box yet ... I'm going from a guy who used to buy many games at 40-50 bucks each for PC's to someone who by comparison is out of the market. Good job all you geniuses at publishing houses!

As far as I know valve games are available worldwide. Chinese retail games (like CS) only work in china. Cause they are much cheaper over there (to combat piracy)
Valve is not charitable organization. They are there for business. You want valve to refuse Empire to be published on steam, game which was a certain hit and would make everyone big bucks because Sega, the publisher doesn't want it to be available in Japan? That's just silly mate.
and like i said before. Valve mos certainly offered them chance to release game worldwide including japan. Only sega is to be blamed for not agreeing to that.
Region limitation is a sound business (more monies) Why DVD have regions? Different groups can be targeted like that, maximizing profit.
like i said. Valve is not to be blamed. Their games are available worldwide, they most likely want publisher to do the same but they are in no position to make them do that.
and if you blame the company for that you are just kidding yourself.
As much as I like valve I don't expect them to be white knights of gaming world.

Why do I get the feeling most of the people mad at Steam for DRM sit at home wearing tinfoil hats...?
Honestly, most of the crap I read on here concerning Steam is under the same type of ignorance that I see what I talk to people online who read about Windows Vista negatively on some blog and belive it.

I don't wear a tinfoil hat...