Valve is the easy target for game developers, but blaming external factors and algorithmic changes for a potential lack of sales serves only as a means of distraction from the actual issue. In my opinion, this is the actual issue:
The supply of indie games far exceeds the demand for them.
I've shared a personal anecdote before. Back in 2010, I was buying turn-based tactics games day one, as soon as they appeared on Steam, because it's my favorite genre and there were very few titles in the genre being released every year. Today, I have more than 20 well-reviewed turn-based games on my wishlist. I still haven't bought any of them, even though many of these titles have had deep discounts. Even in this niche genre, supply is so big that I can't keep up. This problem isn't solved by algorithm changes or complaining about Valve's curation.
Indie developers HAVE to realize that the audience only has so much time and money available. Back when Steam was a tightly curated store, being on Steam was a golden ticket. You know why? Because the success of the developers that made bank was achieved at the expense of thousands, maybe tens of thousands of other developers that languished in obscurity and were denied even the chance of finding success. The golden days of Steam that some developers remember fondly were only golden for the very few that made it in. It was absolute hell for everyone else.
It was developers themselves that pressured Valve to tear down Steam's walls and many gamers, including myself, stood by their side because their argument was convincing: Steam shouldn't determine what the customer can or can't buy. It is an argument I am in full agreement with. Steam shouldn't be the factor that decides whether a game lives or dies. Steam should give developers the means to bring their game to market in the most hassle-free and direct way possible, which it does. The customers themselves will then decide if they're interested in the game or not.
You can vilify Steam all you want for its mysterious algorithms that sabotage your games but the actual problem will not be solved that way. Steam is supposedly this indie-destroying hellscape according to some developers, but not a single soul can point to another platform and say "here, they're doing it better". The introduction of new platforms causes an initial goldrush and then, as soon as services fill up with games, sales drop and we're back to square one. For all its supposed faults and failings, Steam is still the best or one of the best platforms for indies, not only because of sales potential but also because of its openness that allows even small developers a chance at success.
What exactly are Epic's moneyhats supposed to solve? What does that money mean for the small dev who won't get them? How does a few developers that were already going to make millions making tens of millions change the fortunes of the average indie developer? Why are you adopting a stance against your audience's wishes over money that you aren't going to get? Is it the hope that Epic is going to give you a piece of the action? Even if they do, how is that going to solve the overall issue of discoverability and oversaturation for all the other developers out there?
Developers like Ismail openly supporting blatantly anti-consumer practices just to spite Steam is madness. Indie developers are targeting an audience that is more knowledgeable and informed about industry happenings compared to the mainstream gamer. The average gamer doesn't give a shit about indie games. The people that do, the people that actually buy them, are core gamers like me. Do you really think it's a good strategy to come out and declare that "hey, this company that is screwing you over is great for a few of us, so fuck you"? I am truly baffled that some indie developers would willingly antagonize their audience in such a way.
