Can't tell if you're trolling and just here to argue, or actually believe that nonsense. Do you not understand what opportunity cost is? https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_costSteam = 30%
Epic = 12%
30% of $60 = $42
12% of $50 = $44
Deep Silver makes $2 more per sale even though they charge $10 less. They make more money, gamers save more money at launch prices. Releasing at $50 makes their game more competitive compared to other AAA games which are $60. They'll loose a few sales jumping from Steam, but also gain some with a lower price. Sure, they could continue selling it on Steam and raise the price. But to make an equal profit margin they'd have to push over $60. And we'd be back where we started, whining, cries of boycotts, ect. Easier to just pull it off of Steam, strong arm everyone into buying it on Epic for a year (because $2 made is better).
Margin is irrelevant without factoring volume. Deep SIlver isn't "making more money" when they're limiting themselves to a store with a tiny fraction of the buying customer base. Not selling on Steam means leaving hundreds of thousands of additional sales on the table, and for those they'll keep 0% instead of 70% -- conservatively millions of dollars on a high profile AAA like Exodus.
If they wanted to make it $50 on Epic, and leave it $60 on Steam, cool. That's benefitting consumers and increasing competition. But taking a bribe check to keep it off Steam for a year = not increasing competition.