My sister has 39 llamas . . . . I don't know why??? . . . she "rescues" them . . . .=)

Your sister is a hero.
-JNokikana, the most lovable llama loving chicken of them all

You should really speak for only yourself on that one. I personally see no benefit for myself from Steam or EA's models.
So just how much of an effort have you actually made to understand why people hold the beliefs you find "hilarious"? From the discussion in this thread you seem to prefer to paint people with rather broad strokes, and also project motivations onto people instead of taking the time to figure out what people are actually motivated by. If you took the time to understand the nuances of what people actually believe and why they believe it, then perhaps you'd find those beliefs less objectionable, even if you still don't agree with them. And for the record I'm someone that thinks that in the majority of cases (although not necessarily all) no DRM is the way to go. I also find any type of DRM that requires connecting to a remote server objectionable, but don't have much of an issue with most disk checks or simple offline serials. I also think that Steam is one of the more draconian DRM models. If you're at all curious about why I believe any of these things then feel free to ask.
And on the chance you're just going to accuse me of attacking you personally again, I'd like to at least get my money's worth this time, so shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, malodorous, pervert! ;)

"well, I do push Steam and EA's DLC-based model, but that is because those benefit the users"
How does anyone benifit except the company that makes the game when there is 0 Day DLC? I just opened the box so I have not got anywhere in the game yet, can I get a chance to see how the game works before I get new shinies for it at more price?

I agree, guess I'm old school but . . .when I buy a game . . . I expect to get a game . . . the whole game. I should be able to sit down and play it thru without any further contact with the publisher. After playing it thru, if it was a good game, I would consider buying more content . . . not dribbled out a few levels at a time but content that would extend the gaming experience enough to make the additional purchase worth while. Oh, wait . . . that would be an expansion . . . sorry.
The age of nickle and diming your customers is upon us. . .=)
Edit: Tales of three hours to install and update a game just feels wrong . . . it should be a finished product when I buy it. Why is it no longer possible for a game to be finished prior to release? I expect patches to fix bugs but having to download more content before playing?? Should have been on the disk.

Steam benefits the user in that we don't need to pop the disc in every time, we can install anytime we have a stable internet connection, and it provides a pretty nice supplementary system (the steam overlay/chat, and I think you can use Steam-proper as a server browser instead of dealing with the garbage in most games).
The DLC-based model provides incentive for the developers to continue to support the game, which means more patches (and content).
And tell me what the difference is here:
The developers were working on a shiny grappling hook gun. Unfortunately, they ran into a lot of issues, so they backburnered it. They then finish the game-proper, and had jack all to do while most of the beta testing was occurring (outside of making miniscule patches and tweaks, ignoring the occasional massive bug or rewrite). So they get started on the grappling hook again (because it was really nifty).
The devs actually manage to finish the grappling hook late in the beta testing cycle. They could have delayed the game by trying to integrate it again, but they all felt that it would be a good idea to do some more beta testing with the hook. So they aren't going to include it at release.
Now for the thing that sets these scenarios apart :p
A: They delay adding the really nifty grappling hook until a year or so down the road, when it is time for the first expansion pack. There is a lot more stuff they were working on that they included in the expansion pack, so it isn't too bad.
B: They polish the grappling hook and release it pretty early after release (possibly even on 0-Day). Just the grappling hook is in the DLC (free or otherwise), but more DLC is planned.
Am I saying that all DLC works like that? Hell no. Look at Oblivion: There is no way in hell I am going to believe that Bethesda didn't chop out The Orrery. But then you have things like Dragon Age, where the 0-Day DLC was only 0-Day because the game got delayed for console porting time.
This is another thing that I find funny. People don't say that all sci-fi shooters with vehicles are bad just because BREED was actually castrated AFTER the first demo was released. People don't say that all strategy games are bad because they played that one by sega (I forgot the name of it, but it came out a few years back), or that Joint Task Command (or whatever the one with news reporters was), or even that one based on Left Behind. Yet, I can't help but feel that a lot of the animosity has to do with Bethesda and Oblivion (which was arguably the first well-known case of premium DLC that wasn't an MMO).
In the long run, yeah, the DLC route will probably cost a bit more than the expansion pack route (for the same amount of content). But it will ensure that games continue to receive patches the entire time, it will encourage the devs to not just make a sequel (or to actually make a sequel, depending on the game :p). And it will allow for games to be expanded in new and entertaining ways (since most expansion packs, excluding those for sandbox games, tend to be entirely new worlds or adventures).
And if you don't think a DLC is worth buying: Don't buy it. Generally, if it was successful, it will be on the GOTYE or Gold edition. And if not, who cares?
As for 0-day patches (or patches period) which can cause long install/update procesresses (generally happens when you install a game a few months after release): Yeah, they get annoying. But you could take the route that so many others have taken, which is to just stop supporting the game after release :p
The problem is that beta testers can only catch so much. A private beta test restricts the available hardware. A public beta test can damage a game's popularity/credibility, and is likely not any better (because people will just stop playing if they run into a major bug). So, much like with an OS, not every bug can be found until post-release.
Then there is the shadier angle. Let's say you have a few bugs left, but you have to send off the version to be printed on discs. You can either delay the game (annoying most gamers, and your publisher) to fix a bug that affects a relatively small portion of the market (or, if it is Saboteur, your entire targeted market :p)., or you can plan for a 0-Day patch.
But yeah, that is why I tend to push Steam and DLC-based incentive models. Because it is the best alternative, as far as I can see. You get the DRM that makes publishers (and likely most devs) happy, but you also get a lot of conveniences for the user. There IS the problem with you "renting" the game, but I don't see a huge problem with that (especially because digital distribution is already an accepted medium, and it has breathed life back into indie games).
As for the 10-Years Down The Road angle? Take a look at where we are. If it was really that easy to play ANY game 10 years after release, GoG wouldn't exist. Just instead of running DOSBox or a crapload of glide wrappers, we'll run a Steam wrapper (and a crapload of DirectX9 wrappers :p).
Hell, I refused to adopt Steam until I examined how easy it was to bypass. Why? The 10-Year Rule. But it IS pretty easy to bypass, so I no longer have any problems. And if i have to download a game in 10 years, rather than grabbing a disc: I already do that, because I don't like digging through boxes to find my CyClones disc :p.

"Steam benefits the user in that we don't need to pop the disc in every time, we can install anytime we have a stable internet connection, and it provides a pretty nice supplementary system (the steam overlay/chat, and I think you can use Steam-proper as a server browser instead of dealing with the garbage in most games)."
Stable Internet Connection, perhaps you can ask the Iraqi's to stop shooting? Or the Generators on the Fob to never fail,
Or the ISP to never Fail,
Or no Soldiers getting shot as that will bring a com blackout,
It is way easier for me to pop a disc in then to have stable internet access I am getting 5KBS download speed Right Now at 2130 Iraqi Time... Non Peak hour... Non Peak Usage... Etc etc etc
And again, 10 years ago when they made a game and I got a copy, I OWNED that copy, I had NO DLC to get onto the internet. I had to BUY the Game ONE time and Viola I got patches.
Take Warcraft 3, how many patches has it had and the game is HOW old? New Maps DOTA, TD's, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc and yet amazing IT continues to get support. Odd, it gets support by both Blizzard and by people who make maps campaigns etc and best of all, I can patch it all day long add 10000000 of FREE maps at no additional cost.
Or, Unreal, a game that spawned quite a few other games, no DRM, more maps, mods etc user generated and the company generated. Red Orchestra, Killing Floor, just to name just a couple of things that have been user generated. I bought the game years ago, and yet I can still play it because it gets support.
0 Day Patches are not a problem, but 60 for a game and another 20+ in the same day?
The incentive for a dev to build mod's etc etc used to be building an expansion pack they could sell, not this trickle a little at a time crap.

Well, I think you can admit that you situation isn't a "normal" one, as far as digital distribution goes. And most of the services (all of them, I think) allow you to archive the download and either play it elsewhere, or reactivate it elsewhere. Steam in particular allows you to play offline mode for something like a month. I would actually suggest getting someone to mail you discs with the latest versions of the games in archive form, so you just have to verify the cache.
As for the 10 years ago argument: Didn't Relic do Creatures 10-ish years ago? Or the first Freedom Fighters? Those had DLC. Hell, Black & White had DLC. Starcraft had DLC (the abandoned campaign that Blizzard supported). Every Unreal Tournament had DLC (hell, I think Unreal 1 and 2 both had DLC too).
As for Warcraft 3: Blizzard are special. That is really the best way to put it :p. But you'll notice that WC2 isn't as supported as WC3...
As for Unreal: Actually, every Unreal game had DRM. It just got patched out (I think UT3 and U2 still have it, actually). Just saying :p. And actually, Unreal 2 had all support dropped, to the point that its multiplayer (XMP) is dead, last I checked.
As for mods in general: That is really up to the community. And, as the Unreal games have shown, it is very hard to mod these days. Everyone wants to make Total Conversions, so the days of one or two weapon mods are gone.
And I thought only MMOs released multiple patches in a single day (well, MMOs and Tribes 2 :p). And as for a crapload of patches: that is up to the devs. Some (like Relic) favor incremental patches, whereas others have cumulative. Irrelevant to DRM.

Mindscape did Creatures, I remember that. Back in the day when internet was hard to come by they even had mail options for getting .COBs (extra item files) because I got the original install disc and it keeps asking me to register by mail :(
Also Mindscape made so little sales they actually lost money for years and eventually got shut down. Now it's impossible to get the norn pack DLC for Creatures 3 in any way other than pirating because officially they don't sell them no more. One of the few times Pirates do a good thing preserving files lost forever from the legal market. I will admit this is a rare exception.

Impossible Creatures. That is what I was thinking of. The only Relic game I don't like :p
Either way though, DLC has been around for over a decade (probably closer to two decades), even if you don't count patches (which are technically DLC).

Ten years ago was 2000. Just quickly glancing through my collection of disks, here are a few notable games that were released in 2000 (or slightly earlier):
HOMM2
HOMM3
Deus Ex
Baldur's Gate 1&2
Alpha Centauri
Planescape: Torment
Diablo 2
Starcraft
Fallout 1&2
In all of those cases I can (and have within the past few years) simply popped the disc into my computer and played the games with no trouble at all. Now, if you had gone back another 5-10 years, into the glory days of the DOS/Win 3.1 era, then you may have had a point, but the tail end of the Win9x era actually doesn't pose many issues with having games work on modern systems. And looking forward, with changes in operating systems looking more and more to be just incremental improvements and a large focus being placed on backwards compatibility, playing what will soon be considered "old" games is only going to get easier.
And yes, Steam (just like all DRM) can be bypassed if necessary. Except a big reason why I buy games is because I don't want to waste my time dicking around with cracking protection schemes. This applies to both games from 10 years ago and games I bought yesterday. I don't want to waste my time dealing with DRM problems, I want to play the damn game, and the fewer potential impediments there are to that the more ready I'll be to lay down money for a game. With disc checks the only factors that may cause problems are my software and hardware, both of which I have control over. Throw in any kind of remote authentication and suddenly I'm also dependent on my ISP, the game company's ISP, and the game company's servers, none of which I have control over. Make the checks fairly frequent (as Steam does) and that increases the likelihood the occasional problem with any of the above will strike at the same time I want to play the game. Thus why, given the many other options available to me, Steam (and most games that use remote activation DRM) are a no-go.

Warhammer 40k: Chaos Gate (technically 12 years, but whatever) and Max Payne (only 9 years) both have some pretty big problems. CG tends to fail miserably in Vista (works in Win7, shockingly :p) and Max Payne's sound is buggered beyond belief. And those are just two games that I know off the top of my head. And then you have things like Deus Ex and all other UE1 games where they technically work, but some people have problems, if only because of resolution issues. Hell, Mass Effect PC came out a year or two ago and doesn't really support 64-bit OSes very well :p.
That being said, I was mostly thinking of the dos era, and early Win9x when I made that statement. My how the years fly by. But I think it still holds, that there are a lot more problems than just DRM to consider when you are thinking about ten years down the line.
Hell, Star Crusader used a simple cd check. I actually have to plug my 486 in every time I want to play it because DOSBox has difficulties with the disc check and my legal copy of the game. That is technically a DRM issue, but it is one that is already going to be a problem. Just something that we may have to consider when we are all running Windows 14.

The problems that do pop up from the late Win9x and early WinXP eras (and that will likely pop up from the current era) are often due to shoddy coding practices that caused nearly as many problems at the time of release as 5-10 years down the line (I'm going to bet that Fallout 3 will be cited as an example in 10 years of a game that has problems running on then-modern OSes). That's not to say this is always the case, but going forward (and even now) it's not so much an issue of "these games don't work well on modern systems" but just an issue of "these games don't work well (and never have)." Your own Mass Effect example speaks pretty well to this.
It all simply comes down to doing one's homework before buying a game and taking into consideration potential problems (both present and future), then buying or not buying accordingly. There may be a few cases where something completely blindsides us, but most problems are quite foreseeable, especially DRM-related ones.

Pretty much. But at the same time, I think you can agree that, when it comes to solving these problems, we would all rather solve a bit of hinky DRM than a bootstrapped rendering engine. The former just needs a crack, the latter needs research, thought, and solutions that only work 60% of the time :p
Either way though, that is basically why I render the "ten years from now" thing moot, after the crack works. The DLC-based approaches are slightly more problematic, but those are already pirated to hell, so whatever :p

Certainly, if I do have to fix something I'd like the solution to be as simple as possible. However, it's also important to realize that problems due to bugs/incompatibility and problems due to DRM are not an either/or proposition. Potential issues with bugs and incompatibilities down the line are there with all games; potential problems due to DRM are then an additional thing that can go wrong on top of those other issues. Again, it comes down to minimizing potential problems that will prevent me from playing a game when I want to.
Something to recognize is that the "ten years from now" argument is fundamentally no different from arguments about avoiding games with problems upon release, whether those problems are DRM or bug related. What the problem in all cases comes down to is: I want to play this game I bought now, but X is preventing me from doing so. Now, X can be many things- bugs, hardware/driver incompatibility, disc check failing, remote authentication check failing (for many possible reasons), etc. Basically when buying a game I'm looking to minimize how many X's there are, and the chance of those X's happening. Now, the weight given to many of these X's varies greatly from person to person based on how they plan to use the game. For example, the possibility of a problem occurring with remote activation is a function of time (and not just due to the possibility of the company going under), so for someone who plans to get through the game in a couple of weeks then never touch it again such systems aren't particularly worrisome, while for folks like me who tend to pick up and replay games many years later it's more of a concern.
Something else important to recognize is that when going to buy a game I have lots of options. And I mean beyond simply choosing between the various digital distributors and the a physical copy of a game. When I go to buy a game I'm not looking to buy Dragon Age, or Mass Effect 2, or King's Bounty, or Risen, or any game in particular. I'm looking to buy a game that will entertain me and that I think is worth the asking price. There's a lot of games that fit those criteria, far more than I have time to play, so i can afford to be choosy and pass on games that I think have a significant chance of causing me headaches (either now or down the line) without really losing out on anything. I realize I'm probably in a pretty small minority on that one, but I'm only speaking for myself and how my own purchasing decisions are affected by DRM. This is why I tend steer clear of things like Steam, games with online activation, or games with significant amounts of DLC. I can afford to be picky. And so far my approach has worked well for me, I've been well entertained, and over the past 5 years or so the number of times some problem has kept me from playing one of my games, and the number of minutes I was prevented from playing in each case, can both be countered on one hand.
Now, obviously everyone will have their own risk analysis for games they buy (as you clearly do), but hopefully I've provided a bit of insight into why some (such as myself) oppose (mainly in the form of avoiding) certain types of DRM.