More of a 'beating a dead horse' though said horse is a pile of bloody pulp that is unrecognizable as formerly being a horse.

That said, I do agree, some people get irrational about it with EGS.

Problem is on Steam you do not own the games. You rent them as a service. 

On EGS/GoG you own the games and you can run them even without the launcher as they are stores. 

Read careful the EULA. 

Also Steam gives less money to the developers. As a SME owner myself, I will trade with whom ever gives me more money for my work. 

All the free games I get from epic. I just don’t get the hate but hey I ain’t that smart. Epic taking 12% of the games sale cost vs steam’s 30% I’m smart enough to understand. I also get being reluctant to launch a game undergoing changes on steam and getting review bombed which reduced sales. It’s a numbers game wait to release on steam until you have a polished Diamond so it doesn’t rack up negative reviews as it undergoes construction but you lose the sales from people who won’t use epic. We’ll see the outcome maybe a decade from now when they release 5.

I think we as consumers, especially those of us that enjoy Stardock's games, need to remember that what is beneficial for Stardock is beneficial for us. If there is a clear business reason/advantage to using Epic over Steam, and the inconvenience to us is minor, why wouldn't you support Stardock?

I'm going to reiterate that I can not understand the grandstanding by some Steam fanboys on this issue. It makes me think of the asinine Xbox versus Playstation arguments.

Personally, I'll gladly take a minor inconvenience if it means Stardock has more resources to make the games I enjoy. I'm not even sure it is an inconvenience at this point with the size of Epic's market share, and it will only become less inconvenient over time. 

I really don't want to be blunt here... but no, that isn't remotely the same.

Please explicitly list how Stardock has harmed you as a consumer by restricting the purchase of a single game for a limited period of time from being purchased from a single store front. The reason you need to actually state your (supposed) harm is because we do know the benefits Stardock is receiving from said agreement. And, these benefits flow downward to the end product we are receiving as consumers. (I'm doubtful you will contribute anything meaningful to this discussion after you just compared a typical commercial transaction to Stardock willfully, physically injuring its customers (and said customers wanting to be physically injured)). Your analogy is gross and sickening. I hope you reflect on what you just stated here.

If you can't justify your opinion, GTFO.

Edit: This may be an online forum, but each of us are real individuals. I seriously hope you reflect on your response. 

I don't hate Epic but find it's storefront lacking.

The features I'd really like Epic to add are forums, workshop (mods), and player reviews (not just an anonymous star rating). These features add to the feeling of community and enhance the experience of the game.

Now if they continue to improve the Epic store and add more features, then I think it will become a more serious challenger to Steam.

I'm not sure about how good Epic is for indie devs. Yes, Epic takes less per sale but they also have a much smaller user base. Do the devs end up really ahead since they're likely to sell fewer copies. I guess only Devs can speak to that.

I don't mind Epic if I can get the best price there, but having exclusives is bad for the consumer and it's anticompetitive. And you don't own the games there either, they also have DRM, unlike GOG, so not sure what you are talking about.