Ehm, can't take your post seriously with that underlined part. Steam has much more than basic features, which is why EGS is absolute shit and can't easily get up to Steam's level. There are tons of features on Steam that you won't even see on your consoles. No one even thinks about beating Steam on features. The best effort I can remember is GoG's, by trying to circumvent Steam as the library front of PC gaming. And Steam is constantly experimenting, whether it's experiences or games or features, in order to bolster their platform and benefit publishers, developers and consumers.
That Sony, MS and Nintendo are hardware manufacturers is irrelevant as well, as they're also a storefront. That they produced a console doesn't somehow need to have any relevance to the storefront. How they operate in that space is up to what financial model they have, whether they try to take a bigger part of the revenue from sales in their stores, or if it's mostly in the hardware. No matter, how that relates to developers would be the big issue, because naturally you'd have thought that the natural thing would be to pass those costs over to the consumer, but they don't, which puts it all in line with consoles. That's without considering Playstation Plus/Nintendo Online/Xbox Live Gold which makes you shell out money every month/3rd month/year. And that consoles, like PC, didn't always have their own digital storefronts.
There's at least nothing "greedy" about the 30%, as it's been pretty much a part of a standard, just as you have standardized pricing where the savings of digital publishing aren't passed onto you the consumer. EGS is just trying to use that issue and financial incentives to try to push games onto the platform, hopefully as exclusives, in order to through that get consumers to the platform. Problem is that they're not really solving the problem of consumers that way, because unless it's perpetual platform of exclusives from big publishers, it won't really beat out steam with consumers, and furthermore they have no competition on pricing either to attract consumers. The sales have been interesting and a better means of getting people invested in the platform. However, exclusives aren't really cutting it in the same way as it does on console. That's because buying an expensive piece of hardware means you're dedicating yourself to it, to that one platform, unless you of course spend even more money to access the other. That's how you get funneled to one or the other through exclusives as incentives. That same idea doesn't work on PC, because your platform is open to storefronts. Even as people hated it, there were people that went through EA's Origin to play their game, but they didn't move over to Origin as their main platform. Anyone can order a game from EGS because they absolutely need to play it, but then they'll just hop back again to where they have their hundreds/thousands of games in a library.
I wouldn't call Epic scumbags for the shaking up the percentage cut of the storefronts, though I understand why gamers feel uneasy about it. Only scumbag thing is shark tactics like grabbing exclusives. They could have easily done it through some forethought and invested in the games somewhat so it felt justified to keep their own produced games on their platform. Instead it seems like Epic has just done everything as an afterthought and been in hurry to establish themselves, seeing growth potential if they manage to establish as a storefront. So instead they're being sharks and trying to play as if they're somehow saints doing something good for the developers and publishers. Lacking completely in terms of their storefront and their road map seems sketchy.
Problem is that publishers/developers have already a solution for their woes long ago, namely micro-transactions and DLC. Of course cutting that is a benefit and it might alleviate pressure on games that don't follow a micro-transaction and DLC model, allowing them to survive longer. Though in this respect there are tons of developers that expect storefronts to work as a marketing arm and who don't understand that with ease of access to development and resources to develop games, it'll just be more and more games on the market. Meaning that ultimately creating a game needs to be understood as something that requires a large overall work for your company and you can't expect people to buy something just because you've built it. A lot of developers will fail and that's just the reality of the large influx of games we have. You'll see the same things with books. There are a lot of successes, but so many failures that you can't imagine it. Generally the publishers push for certain books to get fronted at bookstores, meaning there are a lot of books that are just hidden in the shelf, if they even get in. On Amazon they're hidden all over, until an algorithm perhaps shows it to you in the corner of the screen, if the writer is lucky.