Steam doesn't require, demand, bribe, or otherwise coerce developers or publishers to secure exclusivity.
Without any real competition you don't have to pay for exclusive deals. If Steam/Epic were closely matched opponents (like Sony/MS) and Steam still didn't stoop to paying for exclusives, now that'd be something to respect.
Ah, a true Codex rarity—a reasonable and logical counterargument.
It's true that Steam is deeply entrenched, has almost all of the clout, and that carving out a slice of their digital distribution pie is guaranteed to be a near-vertical uphill battle. This is indisputable fact, and I'm well aware of it. Furthermore, something I've rarely (if ever) seen discussed is the hard reality that there are very few ways to meaningfully diversify within the gaming industry. Digital distribution of a wide variety and large number of games is by far the most attractive option for diversification, but the barriers to entry are obscenely high due to Valve's monopoly.
The very fact that the creation of DRM client exclusivity
First, if you try to think about it with a stone cold logic - could you realistically overcome 15 years worth of customer ecosystem with just "better features"? How many people would install and start using another launcher just because it's a bit prettier and has better trading cards when they already have 100+ games on Steam? Would you? Thought so.
This may not be obvious from the way I choose to phrase my arguments, but I don't think that Epic is
wrong in any sense of the word. In actuality, using their substantial Fortnite loot to invest in diversification before the goose stops laying is probably the best possible move they can make. Bribing/coercing publishers into exclusive deals may even be the best way to brute-force their way into digital distribution.
However, I am not Epic. Their financial health and business strategies are none of my concern. I am what I am, namely a consumer—and like Epic, I'm first and foremost concerned with my own needs. Therefore, while I'm perfectly capable of understanding Epic's situation and motives, I'm by no means obligated to support or endorse their strategy, because as far as I'm concerned their chosen strategy is anti-consumer. Certainly, their strategy represents an annoyance and an inconvenience to me, and provides no clear benefit to me beyond vague aphorisms and inspirational quotes about competition being a good thing.
I really don't give a damn about the client's features, as long as it allows me to download, update, and launch the games I've purchased. I suppose at this point it is nice to have a friend list and basic chat function, but any client can implement that as easily as breathing. Therefore, the only possible benefits a different client can offer me are substantially faster download speeds (in my case, ~8 mb/sec through Steam) or even lower prices. Coercing me to register and install additional DRM clients because some other corporation wants more profits is a flat-out inconvenience and annoyance, and each new client also expands the odds that some Chilean will somehow gain access to my account and buy FIFA 2022 with my credit card info or whatever.
And second, both Epic and Steam only offer DRM option to the devs and publishers. It's entirely up to the devs if they want to have their game DRM protected. There are scores of games on Steam that run without the launcher and same for Epic. I bought Ashen, it's a fantastic Souls-like and it's completely DRM free. And Outer Worlds will run without the launcher too btw.
While technically true, that's like saying that you've merely offered slices of birthday cake to a roomful of five-year-old children. For the great majority of publishers and developers, the built-in DRM is a major or even the primary selling point.