What is wrong with one-time online activation (which, BTW, GFWL does do along with online "in the cloud" game saves, just like Steamworks) with no activation limits or restrictions? We've been doing it for years now with tons of stuff, not just games, on our PCs, starting with Windows itself, although Windows does have activation limits set on it, unlike Steam.
From a user perspective, what is Steamworks used for other than "community" stuff and multiplayer?

So Steam provides added value to the developer/publisher, a thing which I don't personally see any problem with. Seducing in my view would be attracting someone without giving anything in return.
And again, do you really think that if Steam wasn't developed there wouldn't have been an alternative to it on the market at this point?
From what I've seen their principal problem is that they have to log on to Steam to be able to play the game.

The same things that are wrong with all similar online activation DRM out there. Why would a one time activation be bad with Securom and suddenly magically become better with Steam.
...........cogadh : "(which, BTW, GFWL does do along with online "in the cloud" game saves, just like Steamworks)"
I have yet to see a single game to use GFWL for single player online activation (maybe Halo 2 or FS X but IRC even those use another DRM ). and seriously, is there really lots of peoples that have any use of the save game cloud... I agree that auto-patching is really convenient, but "cloudy" save games...
...........cogadh : "From a user perspective, what is Steamworks used for other than "community" stuff and multiplayer?"
Exactly like from a user perspective playing Ubi DRM is just a harmless little spash-screen that appear when they launch the game.

There is a fundamental disconnect in logic here that perturbs me. Let me propose the following hypothetical conversation to remedy the issue:
A: I dislike Steamworks.
B: Why?
A: Because it requires that I install and run Steam.
B: Why does that bother you? Steam is great.
A: The reasons for my objection to this are largely irrelevant. What matters is that I do not wish to install and run a third-party application in order to play games, when a fully-functional add-on, such as Games for Windows LIVE, would suffice.
B: You must be defective. Steam is great.
...Many of us do not want to run Steam in order to play games that we purchase outside of Steam. GFWL has demonstrated that a full client need not be launched in the background to provide similar features. What is wrong with not wanting something? Do those of you who question my views find disagreement disturbing? Do you scoff at those with political views, aesthetic tastes, and general opinions that differ from your own?

So use offline mode and there is no problem.
Just so we are clear, I'm not trying to argue about this with anyone, I'm just trying to understand the problem. From my perspective, Steam is just yet another tool for gaming, no better or worse than Gamespy or Xfire or any number of other applications in my gaming toolbox, and it is certainly better as a DRM model than anything else currently in use (not perfect, but better), so I don't understand why there is all this hatred for it.
In the time I've been using it, it has actually exposed me to more games than I would have otherwise experienced (I never would have tried Portal or have even heard of Audiosurf or Torchlight if it weren't for Steam), so I also see it as something that has been a benefit to PC gaming... at least my PC gaming. I don't rely on Steam exclusively, I also own titles through Impulse, have bought (with regret) from D2D, GOG of course and a few direct purchases without any service associated. In fact, I'm pretty sure the last boxed game I actually bought was Half-Life 2 when it first released. That introduced me to Steam and the idea of DD services for games and I've never looked back.
See, now I think I'm starting to sound like a Steam fanboy and I'm really not. I honestly get about as excited about Steam as I do about any web browser; as long as it does what it is supposed to, that's all I care about. I just don't understand why anyone else sees it any differently, either positively or negatively.

No, because Ubi DRM doesn't give anything in return of the things I surrender in order to use it, it doesn't do anything to improve the convenience.

Seriously, not allowing online profiles to save/load offline games (and vice-versa) is idiotic.

Like mentioned before the real problem with Steam is not Steam in itself, at least for me, (even thought the fact that Steam is becoming a monopoly might soon become a problem of it's own) but more with online-activation DRM in general ... and it just happens that Steam is the most used online-activation DRM out there for PC games (and maybe soon for Mac games).
It's exactly what happened with iTune, peoples were talking and complaining about iTune's DRM even thought it wasn't the only music distribution service using DRM and theirs wasn't the worse one and by far, it just happened to be the most used one.

Because Steam's one-time activation is unlimited, SecuROM is not (usually, there are exceptions). I don't have a problem with any one-time activations (as I said, we've been doing it for years now before all the SecuROM brouhaha), as long as they don't require any kind of continuous internet access after that activation, which Steam does not.
Arkham Asylum requires an active connection to GFWL and it uses the "cloudy" save games as well. I believe the activation part was simply creating a valid GFWL account, but not an actual game activation, but what's the difference when you can't play the game with GFWL?
No, from a user perspective, Ubi's DRM is the thing that keeps their game from working without an internet connection. Steamworks doesn't do anything like that. As far as most users are concerned, Steamworks might as well not exist, since all they know is that they can chat with their friends, find multiplayer matches and their save games are portable across different PCs. They never knowingly see or "feel" the presence of Steamworks, unlike things like Ubi's DRM.

Wrong. It offers cloud storage of your save data, a much-celebrated feature of Steam. It also offers Ubi.com community support and auto-patching.
Both Steam and Ubi.com offer perks to users. By your logic, users should have no trouble swallowing Ubi.com because of its added features.

You fail to understand my objection. Offline mode still launches the Steam client and operates it in the background when I play Steamworks titles.
I do not want to run the Steam client unless I choose to run Steam by purchasing games from the Steam store. Is this point not clear?

The difference between Steamworks and UbiDRM is that Steamworks is not totally reliant on Steam's servers being up. Yes, Steam's offline mode is flaky at the best of times, but at least it's present. Plus, UbiDRM doesn't do redownloading of your games on demand and instant re-installs.

I'm not arguing that UbiDRM is better or worse than Steam (it is far worse than Steam). I simply refuted the point that added features somehow make something that is undesirable immediately acceptable.

Then as I said before talk to the developers/publishers and don't buy the game; if you find the terms of use unacceptable don't use the product, it's as simple as that.
As for Ubi DRM, I said it's about convenience and bringing more things to make up for those I give up: with Steam I can play my games offline, with Ubi DRM I cannot, with Steam I can download a game as many times as I want, Ubi DRM doesn't even handle that, with Steam I get integrated chat interface straight into the game, Ubi DRM doesn't.
The overall convenience given by Steam outweighs the things I give up in order to use it, in Ubi's case it does not. When it will, I will use it.
It really pisses me off when people neglect the fact that Steam is a content distribution platform and not only a DRM scheme when talking about it and comparing it with other DRM schemes.

Your point is completely clear, you don't want to run the client. What I don't understand is why. You most likely run any number of other applications in the background while gaming (antivirus, maybe a chat client or music player, perhaps even Gamespy or Xfire), what is so different about Steam, especially if it is in offline mod?. It can't be the resource usage, if your PC can't handle running a game and Steam at the same time without taking a performance hit then it is well past time for an upgrade and you would most likely have a problem running the game even without Steam. It can't be the internet connection issue, Steam is in offline mode. Those are really the only two reasons I can think for wanting to not run the client, unless you have something else?

It's not really a Steam "feature", it's up to the game editor to decide, it's perfectly possible to have unlimited activation with Securom (Bioshock 2, Borderlands, GTA IV) like it's perfectly possible to have limited activation with Steam, or even (don't know if any games actually use it but it's listed in Steamwork available features) to have the game activate online it every time you start it.
Well that's the point, you (and you are not the only one) don't have a problem with it, that's fine, but there are peoples who do have an issue with it for it for plenty of reasons.
AA, like all the others GFWL games I own, only require you to create an offline GFWL account to play... you don't need to activate the game online or anything, heck I installed, played and finished the game on a computer that isn't even connected to the Net.