The part that bothered me is fairly petty, but as a measure to calm fans, they were trying to word it as if it was a good move, and will only result in the game reaching more people, which just completely neglects the fact that it's being removed from Steam.

I actually use the Epic Games store, and I think it's fine, but the stupid way marketing and PR works is annoying to me sometimes. Like, maybe a "sorry it had to happen this way", but not a "this is the best move to make and more people will get to play the game now", which is just a blatant lie. Sure, they are going to say whatever they want to hype up their game, but like I said... it's petty, but it still bothers me.

I don't think it's a debate on the legality of what they are doing. I'm under the impression that a large part of the reason they bought the developer in the first place is so that they could do this. When things are anti-consumer, it's generally a good idea to let your voice be heard about it. Boffer does make a good point, though; it's quite ironic.

Most of it comes down to two things - (1) common sense, and (2) not panicking and freaking out. 

You are reacting off of impulse and emotion, and refusing to look at it objectively. This is proven by the emphatic language you are using to argue. Take a step back.

What, exactly, is the harm in the first place? It's minorly annoying to use a different launcher and to be required to have purchases aggregated through a different entity, but the games don't require the launcher to run, and you can back up your files to physical media to save for posterity, so even if the EGS goes belly up and all your purchases are lost (highly unlikely - more likely that either Epic or the EGS itself will be purchased by another retailer before anything is actually lost), you can still permanently keep everything.

The EGS is annoying, for sure, due to its security concerns and its poor design, but like I said, you can bypass it entirely if you want, once you have the games installed.

The only certain harm at all is minor inconvenience.

Meanwhile, financially benefiting the developers is inarguably beneficial for gamers. Especially indie devs. More money = more resources to either develop more games, or better ones. Or both. None of those things are guaranteed in every situation, but "not guaranteed" is far from "not likely". 

Additionally, the argument that we already get quality is also ignorant. Fine, we're getting good stuff. But how's about better? Give a good developer more money and - hey whaddaya know! He can do more! Before Netflix opened up for original content, we were limited to content that the major networks were willing to pay for and fit into their limited timeslots. Many fantastic shows were canceled because networks were limited in what they could air. Once Netflix opened up for original content, though, Netflix and all the other streaming services became avenues for content distribution without getting actual broadcast airtime, and there are TONS of quality shows and movies that we get now that simply wouldn't have gotten the time of day ten years ago.

This is in absolutely no way any different. 

For years, devs (especially indie ones) have complained about the high cut that Valve took, but because Steam has been the only major non-first-party platform (see: not Origin, not UPlay, not Battle.Net, etc) to release games through, many devs have seen it as their only viable option. Maybe Valve does provide valuable resources and services that are paid for with that 30% cut. But maybe some devs don't want those services. Maybe they just want to release their damn games and be able to make money off of them. 

No, I don't like the EGS by any means. No, I don't plan on buying Borderlands 3 through it. But you know what? They've specifically said they'll stop aggressively chasing exclusivity if Valve reduces their mandatory cuts. You don't have to agree with their tactics. You don't have to like them. But you can't sit there and say that the welfare of gamers is being ignored.

True, but cutting off all those who ain't having it on EGS would be a dick move. Microsoft handled that a lot better after they bought Minecraft. Imagine it being locked to Windows store and Xbox only

I remember the outcry here about the Wii U games on the Switch being forcing the players to buy a game twice, and yet I haven't seen this come up here. Unless you can simply copy your serial number, that's exactly what it amounts to.

Begun, the Store Wars have.

You are probably still giving money to Epic with even knowing it. So many games are made with their engine, which they get  royalties from. 

2 days too early ^^

You know. So you're okay with the platform it is on if it is a very good game or "best games of all times". I seem to remember a certain game called Shmayonetta 2 that turned out to be one of the best games this gen. Did things change? My issue is that before you were arguing very much so against exclusivity because of one certain company, and now you condone a company that outright buys up exclusives (let alone save them from development hell). Surely you see why this bothers me right? 

To be fair, Bayonetta 2 wouldn't even have been made, had Nintendo not stepped in, as neither Sega, Sony or Microsoft were willing to pay for the development. It's not like buying the release rights to a game weeks before it's release, especially after that one got already announced for other platforms.

That was actually his point