For me, in particular, I dislike their practices. Theoretically, it's a good idea to give developers a higher cut, but I feel the way they're going about it is wrong. Console exclusives are one thing, and they even make sense in the context that they're different platforms in the sense that they've got unique titles to attract the masses, but this is the PC we're talking about. The PC landscape should be free of any barriers and any such barriers are completely artificial.
Steam is popular, both by users and devs, not because it's exclusive, but because they introduced a new system for digital delivery at a time when it was in its infancy, and was very much considered an experiment of sorts, so of there were any exclusives early on like Fallout 3, it's more out of consequence. Many didn't think it would last, and there have been many other storefronts that tried their hand and failed early on. They prospered because they were pioneers and grew their features into a reliable delivery method, and many devs rely on Steam's framework and infrastructure for major features of their games.
Enter Epic, and it just seems to me, that with a lack of features people want, the only way they can compete is by waving around AAA exclusives at every opportunity. Big upcoming release? Epic exclusive! Yeah, I get that they want to give devs a higher cut, but it should never be at the expense of being an exclusive. I remember reading about a developer who was approached by Epic, and his studio I think was 3 people including him, and while the higher cut was tantalizing, in the end he didn't accept the deal as he realized that being as small as he was, he'd actually end up hurt by the deal by not having his game up on as many storefronts as possible. For a small dev, that does matter quite a bit.
Higher cuts can absolutely be a good thing, but devs should have a choice in being available in as many storefronts as possible, not be strong-armed into exclusivity for wanting a bigger cut. IHMO, that defeats the purpose entirely.
