According to the logic of your first point, EGS sells the same stuff as steam; videogames. No one owns what a videogame is so regardless of which one you prefer, you're gonna walk out with a videogame either way. The choices the consumer has in this instance is which one they like more depending on how they're made and that's what differentiates the stores.
In the case of "Big Mac", there's no Burger King version of this that people can buy to replace the one from McDonalds.
Exclusivity to one variation of a product isn't a monopoly btw. At least not a proper one. While technically it loosely fits the definition, a monopoly over an exclusive videogame is not the same as (for examples sake) a monopoly over the supply of clothes in a country, meaning citizens are at the whim of their clothes selling overlords. McDonalds has a monopoly with the Big Mac, but that's not a harmful monopoly.
Wrong. Again.
There's not something called "Video game" that someone can own and be equal to any other game. If that's the case, please, point me in the direction of the Steam version of Metro: Exodus that has the same gameplay, type of characters, story, setting, weapons, and source material but isn't called "Metro: Exodus." because I'd really like to play that.
A hamburger is made mainly with buns, patty, assorted vegetables, ketchup, mustard, mayo. Other than small things like extra ingredients, or the cooking method, burgers are virtually the same between stores at a basic level. So you get a burger regardless of the store and end up choosing the one you like the most.
McDonald has a "monopoly" on "Big Mac", not on hamburgers. You can make hamburgers and sell them without the Big M breathing down you neck as long as you don't call them Big Mac (this is more of a trademark issue).
So you're saying it's understandable that devs don't publish on GoG because DRM free means piracy, or in short, lower profits overall potentially? Sounds kind of similar reasoning as to why publishers are going to EGS. 12% given to the storefront is a whole lot less than 30%. Add to that the actual money epic is reportedly throwing in and it seems like a great deal.
Why is it justifiable for them to ignore GoG because of financial reasons, but when they choose EGS over steam for financial reasons they're suddenly hitler? Both the reasoning and the end result are exactly the same.
This is the part where we both can agree on something. They're all doing this for money. And I don't blame developers for it.
The problem is that, form a consumer standpoint, there's no benefit whatsoever. In an ideal competitive market, every game would be on every store and consumers would only choose the platform they like more or that has the most features. But, alas, we don't live in that world.
If developers want to put their games on the EGS, good, but don't screw over the consumers that where promised a release on other stores and expect them to be cool with it.
Is it more money for the developer? Absolutely. Will it make people hate both the store and the developer? Most certainly.
An anti-consumer practice doesn't stop being anti-consumer just because it makes money.
What do you think happens with streaming services (Netflix, Hulu. Amazon, etc.)? People choose the one they like and pirate the rest.
The same will happen with gaming platforms. Especially when every other company starts making their own "game streaming" service.