I can do that and protest loudly and publicly about a business decision I don't like. Is there any reason I shouldn't?
Indeed. It's disappointing to see people arguing for visibility at the expense of other developers. This is what Epic-style 'curation' boils down to. One game gets exposure, fifty other games languish in obscurity. This was the situation before Steam opened up and the people that are now vilified by developers for speaking up against moneyhatting were on the developers' side, pressuring Valve to help them. People forget way too easily.
I would respect such a decision if it didn't involve the monetary incentive. As it is, it's a straightforward moneyhat that the developers that accepted it are trying to present as some worthy cause. It can be both to some degree, but anyone claiming that the 'cause' was the main factor instead of cold hard cash is rather naive in my opinion.
You know what the irony here is? We, and by we I mean the group of people that have been part of the PC community on GAF and now on Era for years, care more about small developers than small developers care about us. Back when Valve was enforcing strict curation on Steam and small developers were protesting about that fact, many of the same people that posters like you are labeling as 'platform worshippers' were against Valve and on the developers' side.
A prominent example is Durante , who was very vocal about criticizing Valve back in the day for not letting smaller indie games on Steam and imposing artificial restrictions on what the customer would be able to buy. So what turned this defender of indie devs into a 'platform worshipper'? Absolutely nothing. His and everyone else's stance on artificial restrictions by platform holders has been consistent throughout the years and protesting against them was targeted first AGAINST Valve and now against Epic.
So you are free to label people as much as you want, since the site's moderation doesn't seem too keen on putting a stop to it, but you're wrong.
