Listen, FloorPie, I'll just deal with your "exclusives kill price" argument.
What creates better pricing? Four main things:
1) Falling costs. As something gets cheaper to make, it often gets cheaper to purchase
2) Falling demand. This, of course, can have the opposite, as sometimes something being less in demand causes greater pricing, because selling less of something can greatly increase the cost to produce it
3) Competition over similar products. If Rage 2 wants to compete with Borderlands 3, one way to do so is to drop the price and show more value
4) Competition between retailers. Walmart can drop its price on Bounty Towels to get consumers to come to them over Target (though they do not - Walmart is Every Day Low Price, so they do not do sales), or Walmart can pressure Huffy Bikes to send production to China to reduce costs so that consumers can buy a $99 bicycle
How would an Epic Store reduce prices?
1) Epic has greatly reduced the cost to bring a game to market in some cases. In theory, this can be passed on to the consumer, though I do not expect it will be, because publishers typically try to maintain Minimum Advertised Price, and would be pressured by any other retail outlet (be it Steam or Gamestop) to match prices, otherwise it does them a disadvantage
2) Not Applicable
3) Not Applicable
4) Not Applicable. See, people like you keep thinking this is applicable. You keep thinking that Epic will want more sales than Steam, so it would drop prices, but instead it's doing exclusives. THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE.
Again, Epic does not control pricing - publishers do. So there is NO PRICING COMPETITION AMONGST STEAM AND EPIC. The exact same human being, literally the exact same person, sets the price on both places. That person is an employee of the publisher, and does not particularly care if people are on Epic or on Steam. He wants a sale. Neither would have a pricing advantage, because neither controls their pricing.
There could be a billion storefronts, but since they're marketplaces, that one employee sets pricing on each storefront, and therefore increased competition isn't pricing competition, because while there are more places to buy something, there are not more people deciding pricing.
Let me give you a tangible, real-world example, since this seems to escape you. Amazon controls its pricing for some products, but for others, its a marketplace. For most products, it's actually both - Amazon sells the product itself, but any Joe Schmoe holding the product can also list it. For Luxury Beauty, though, Amazon restricts those Joe Schmoe's, and sells at MSRP. Several products have begun selling on Amazon, where they'd previously only been on Sephora. Now they're on both. "Great," someone unfamiliar with the concept of marketplaces may think, "competition! The price will fall!" But, in every case, the price has gone up? Why? Because, even though it's now on Amazon, being officially on Amazon has brought about price stability. Amazon is no longer selling below MSRP, because it has an official relationship with the brand. The brand is now in control of the pricing on Amazon. Any discounts are gone.
Anyone arguing this does not understand how online marketplaces work. You keep arguing for something to happen that is literally impossible. The entities in competition do not control pricing, so pricing will not fall.