taczillabr: You won't die because of using steam for 2 or 3 games you like the most. ;)
There's no other way around anyway, as I said their 2 previous games were tied to steam before.
No, I won't die, but I still don't like the idea of needing to use a third party client (other than an OS, obviously) to run a program, unless it is my choice (e.g. DosBox). It has kind of a Big Brother vibe to me, just the feeling I get. I suppose it boils down to this: I don't like being forced to go through more hassles to own a program legally than pirates are forced to go through to steal the same application. I don't think pirates will need to log into a third party client to play their game, will they?
Sure, Steam offers a lot of extras, but what if I don't want ANY of them? I rarely play multiplayer (The last time was Diablo II, and Diablo III will probably use Battle.net anyway, which would not be third party), so I don't need that. I don't need an IM service, I already have Skype. I don't need yet another forum to frequent, I have plenty. I don't care about the auto-updates, sometimes I don't like to patch right away or just like to do it manually. I don't care about being able to access the program from anywhere, that is what a physical DVD or network is for. Is there anything Steam would offer me other than adding an extra step to running a program and consuming HD space and system resources (as minor as that use might be)?
On another subject, they last TWO games were? Medieval II wasn't, because I bought that and was never required to install Steam (that i know of). I know Empire was tied to Steam, but what is the other one you mention that they released since Medieval II? I am not being sarcastic, I am honestly curious as to what I missed.
EDIT:
Ah, it was Napoleon that i totally missed. That went totally under my radar, heh. Just as well, it doesn't really interest me anyway.