rayden54: Except in the subscriber's agreement which nobody bothers to read.
Which is exactly why from a legal standpoint, how they market themselves is more important than the subscriber's agreement.
Plus, I may be wrong, but I believe the subscriber's agreement refers to the Steam client software ONLY. Not the individual games.
They have posted in forums that offline mode is meant to work indefinitely (and my testing to date backs that up now after at first experiencing several offline mode failures) and there was even an internal post or something recently about how they would handle ties to the client in the case of Steam going out of business or something, with the meme being gamers would still be able to play their games.
At every public opportunity, they CHOOSE to make it appear that they are selling software.
Like you though, I wish some government would pressure them into making it more clear, by either allowing the gamer to have more ownership rights or to make them publicly market the fact that they're renting games.
What I see Steam is, is a small step toward renting, always on DRM. We were never going to go from buying games in retail stores to renting them with always on DRM in one giant step. This is how it works. Steam does muddy the rental/ownership waters as much as possible, and I too wish they would be forced to clear those waters up.
But I too believe that if/when they do, they will still be the largest digital distributors of games in the world, because consumers will be okay with it. I won't, I boycotted Steam for it's entire life until just a couple of years ago when I realized that horse had left the barn, but if they do go full bore rental, I'll be done with them for good. I won't rent a game at any price. Because I've never played a game that I enjoyed that I didn't want to play again later at some point. And if it's a game I wouldn't enjoy, well, I'm not gonna rent that either.