Maybe I should've worded my post better, or added more to it actually, truth be told it was made during my very short break at work and wasn't exactly meant to spark a discussion but more of a passing opinion, although I'm here replying now and I'd be happy to elaborate.
People are entitled to their opinions, and whether they agree or disagree with me, I really don't mind as long as they're up for an actual discussion... maybe you'll be able to change my mind on the situation, maybe not, but here goes;
I know that EGS is lacking in so many areas when compared to Steam (and other launchers I'd assume, but let's keep this between EGS and Steam). I also know that the whole timed exclusive thing is a downer for some people. However, for someone such as myself who literally ONLY buys and plays games via launchers and doesn't jump into the other aspects of Steam/EGS/Insert Launcher; the issue is not as big for me personally. Yes, there are other aspects like cloud saves and friends lists (Or whatever features are missing, I don't use the launchers extensively enough to know what should and shouldn't be there) as well that are missing but in time those will also be added and don't bother me mainly because most of the games I'm interested in on EGS (and Steam) are single player experiences that I can't see myself gaining any benefit from by having these additional features around.
I definitely understand these things might be more important for others and I'm sorry if my post read in a way that devalued those views, maybe the comparison to console exclusivity was a little out there, but I'm very open to being informed about any other problems people have (As Basil has already done) and deciding for myself if it makes a difference for me personally.
Wording it differently would have helped, but ultimately, if it's hard to understand the other side of things, then i'd honestly say it's not worth chiming in on. I for example, greatly dislike talking pol talks, because pol talks become an insanely dangerous midfield, where one side can rip you apart, or another taking you under it's wing.
People are entitled to their own opinions for sure, but if said opinion hand waves a situation, but also not trying to understand it, can just come off as passive aggressive/feigning ignorance.
The issue not being a big deal for you is absolutely fine. There's nothing wrong with you not finding the same issues some of us have in regards to EGS "competing" with Steam. I'm all for competition, but only as long as said competition brings many benefits for us consumers, but also not seeking total destruction of the competition itself (Valve aren't trying to destroy everyone, but EGS wants to cut everyone out and become "the" storefront, not just "another" storefront. Even Jim Sterling knows and says this himself).
The thing is, having those features still brings us a benefit in some form or another. Playing an SP game, but you forgot to save your game in time, or the net cut out?, your latest autosave would have been uploaded beforehand, allowing you to pick up where you last left off. This is especially handy if your own local save files become corrupt/go missing (and this has happened to me a few times over the years). I'm not one for leaderboards, but I know there are people out there that like to be competitive, and that recent burnout game, that's exclusively locked to EGS, does not support leaderboards, which other racing games before it have done, even on consoles.
People seemingly trying to side with Epic, see that these features "aren't important", but also forget (or know and are being utter assholes about it) that because it isn't important to them, doesn't mean it's "objectively non important to everyone else. Tim Sweeney is trying to assert that he is wanting to add some features, but not all the ones Steam sport, let alone everyone else, but at the same time he tries to defend his lack of caring or understanding, and thus just passes it off as "I know what's best for you", and that honestly set for a very passive aggressive tone shift and a bad idea in general. (Consumer service 101: never tell your consumer/customer what's best for them, because they will most likely be met with ire/anger, and people defending that ill practice, are just feeding the cycle).
I think the main issue on here, as well as other sites, is that console gamers are coming in, looking at 3rd party exclusivity deals, as if they are exactly the same as 1st party exclusivity, but they really aren't exactly the same, as one is created from nothing by the platform owner itself, while 3rd parties are made by someone else entirely detached from 1st party platform holders.
Really, what would be more ideal, is Epic putting greater focus on crafting their own first party, maintaining their cut, keeping it on indefinitely (because I want to see how long Tim can hold onto his word, I honestly want to see the man fall on his own sword, because he talks a big game and people like that are destined to have it blow up in their face at some point), while also keeping up in terms of features and making ones of their own, that could spark the rest of the competition to add those in (like how Origin sparked Steam to go for the current refund system that even EGS has had to implement).