This isn't competition, though. This is no different from exclusive games on one platform. If there wasn't the exclusive part, just the difference in how much each company takes, then yes, that's the competition.
I agree that the exclusivity is not directly competitive, but with it, comes a fight between the stores to try to compete for exclusives, or at least encourage the other party enough so that they don't have exclusives. With that said, we, the consumer are not the client in this instance, the developer/publisher is. For too long valve has been relying on their DRM and first to market advantage, to try to keep people stuck on their platform.
To dwell on this a little, steam allows devs/pubs to release games wherever they want, so does epic. Where this exclusivity occurs is that epic offers additional marketing only if the game is exclusive to epic, for a year i think. If you don't like it, it's the dev/pub which makes the decision, not so much the store, it's just another 'service' they sell. I also don't think it's any different than steamworks, which forces the user onto steam regardless where the game has been purchased from.
This is why I've been for a really long time, against DRM in the first place. It's really anti-consumer, and in the case of steam, only serves the purpose of hindering competition through buyer lock-in. Steam is a walled garden of sorts that has no interest in playing nicely with any one. When valve/gaben were critical of MS with windows 8 and its app marketplace, pretty much all the criticisms of W8 could equally be leveled at valve and steam. Only interesting thing is that none of it came to pass with MS, yet valve continue to operate as always.
Now what I most dislike about valve is that they've incorporated and mass market gambling into to some of their games and steam, and target children. Thing is, I believe fortnite has the same things. Loot boxes are a form of gambling.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram