I think personal opinions are quite relevant here, legally speaking the law is clear and we've all got a problem with that - concurrently, legally speaking any game you've got through steam is a leased copy so if steam revoked your ability to play it tonight you wouldn't have a clear legal way to challenge them (unless the game is a subscription and they continue to collect that fee)
Regardless of the EULA, there are legal arguments [1] to be made that Steam's games are goods, not services, and buyers whose games are remotely disabled due to auth servers being shut off should be entitled to either a refund, a reasonable patch to keep the game working locally or have a clear expiration date stamped on the storefront since day one.
This recent French court's ruling [2] indirectly supports this interpretation.
Well, from SecuROM’s perspective I think everything makes sense. Personally I think the responsibility should fall on the developers to ensure that people who paid for something can access it.
Consumer protection really hasn’t caught up here. Desperately need it to, imo.
