We already paid both steam/valve and the developer/publisher of the game when purchasing said game, so yes, it's anti-consumer. Again, if the publisher/developer decides they do not want to have their game on steam due to the 30% take, then by all means, they don't have to. They don't have to have all the features provided on steam to both them and their customers. They don't have to have access to the largest PC gaming platform there is. If they feel that they will get more money from not having access to steam, that is their call. This is on the developer/publisher, not the consumer, so yes, again, your suggestions are anti-consumer, because it's about what the developer/publisher wants and can have access to, that you're trying to put onto the consumer. These features are for the game developers/publishers to benefit from, from MORE sales, from MORE benefits, from MORE reason to purchase said game by the consumer, not for the consumer to have to worry about what features they have paid for and what features they have not paid for and feeling like steam is a pay-to-play platform. Your suggestions would be the end of steam competitiveness, simply put. And this has no benefit to consumers, steam/valve, or the publishers/developers that put their games on it. No one benefits. No, we're not. It is not "greedy" to not purchase a product, or purchase a product. If a game is not good, then is it then greedy to not purchase their product and instead purchase their competitors product? No. If the developer/publisher earns more money overall from being on a platform that the consumers are more willing to buy their product on, there's nothing greedy about it. The developers/publishers get what they want: More overall money, and the consumers get what they want: The features on the gaming platform they use. Developers/publishers are looking for US to purchase their game and give them money, so as you say we are "demanding" that the game creators pay the "steam tax", so be it, THEY want OUR money. If a game developer isn't willing to do what their gamers want and are asking for, then so be it, they won't have a good selling game, and this is regardless if it's steam, or plain and simple features within the actual game. Again, it's up to the developers/publishers to determine what will best sell THEIR game, and it's up to the consumers to decide to pay for it if it meets their needs. This is not even remotely the definition of "greed" Game developers do not HAVE to have their games on steam, they are not FORCED to do this, and consumers do not HAVE to purchase their game for whatever reason they feel like. This is how the world works. It's up to the game developers/publishers to do what is needed to make the consumers buy the products they are making, not the other way around. I feel like i'm going around in circles here since it's painful how this isn't understood, so maybe i'll try one last ditch effort and compare it to real-world markets. Would you: Go to a grocery store that is a dump and seems like it's unsanitary, no one wants to help you, doesn't look like the place gets much maintenance done, and everything is MSRP pricing, but you know the grocery store doesn't take as much of a hit on the products so the products you are buying have more money go to the maker Or Go to a grocery store that looks well maintained, plenty of help everywhere, plenty of features available such as in-store pick up and can order from home and be ready when you are there, apps on your phone to tell you exactly where the products are, among whatever else you feel would be a luxury for a grocery store, and still pay the same as the run-down store, knowing that the makers of the products you are buying do not get as good of a margin on it, more goes to the store. I'd find it hard to believe that anyone would WILLINGLY go to the run-down, featureless store, just so the makers of the products get more money. If you're spending the same both places you will go where it is more convenient for you, what feels better, for you. Now if the run-down store had less cost on the products, more people would be enticed to go there, but this is why the epic store makes no sense, it costs the consumers the same, for LESS FEATURES. This is why they are exclusives, to timed exclusives, because if they weren't, epic store would get no sales (or very little rather). This is anti-consumer, as you are forcing, at least for a time being, for consumers to get products with less features for full retail prices. You're taking away the choice that consumers have to buy their products wherever they want with the features they want, so that the developers/publishers get more money, and so that epic gets a larger userbase and people get use to buying stuff from them. Again, anti-consumer. The pro-consumer way to do this would be to release on all platforms the game developers want, and for EPIC to decide to take a cut to THEIR cost to get consumers over to the platform, by enticing consumers with less costly games for their lack of features.