Lots of factual errors in your post, buddy.

"I keep hearing over and over users saying that Steam doesn't do exclusive deals with devs/publishers. Yet I thought that was the whole point of DRM. "

DRM is actually unrelated to exclusivity. The idea of DRM is copy-protection; rigging software so that it only runs under specific conditions that the dev/publisher can enforce. This helps prevent lost sales from users buying the software and (illegally) uploading it to the Internet for free download.

The oldest DRM schemes included special invisible markers on disk filesystems and questions from a manual included with a game. In the late 1990's and early 2000's, these were phased out in favor of disc checks (must have the CD/DVD in the computer to launch the game), serial numbers, and copy-protection on disc. In the mid to late 2000's there were the terrible malware-like DRMs, the most prominent example being SecuROM.

Modern DRMs are generally account-based with online authentication. Some require perpetual or periodic authentication; others require you to login once to unlock the game on a specific computer.


"Exclusive deal between dev and DRM" is a misnomer. I'm not aware of specific deals between any dev/publisher and DRM vendor where the dev/publisher gets a discount on the DRM tools in exchange for putting it on all of their games.

There are several reasons why a store might do exclusives with devs/publishers:
* The store wants to promote itself. The Epic Fail store is the best example that comes to mind - a newcomer to the market propelled only by Fortnite and Unreal Engine. They have much money and little attention (compared to the other online stores), so paying devs/publishers for exclusives makes sense.
* Dodging distribution fees, or disagreement over the terms of distribution and sales. EA and Ubisoft are the major examples. In the late 2000's, Steam was virtually a monopoly on digital game distribution, imposing a 20-30% "tax" on all sales. EA and Ubisoft decided they didn't want to pay the distribution fees. IIRC, EA got into trouble with Valve for their practice of side-loading expansions to dodge Steam distribution fees - this prompted them to build Origin and discontinue all further distribution on Steam. EA would sell a base game on Steam to reach more customers, then sell expansions separately on their own website (where Valve can't impose the 20-30% cut of sales).
* Monopolizing the premier of a highly anticipated game. This usually applies to big-budget "AAA" games with a $50-$60 price tag at launch, which slowly depreciate down to $20 over time. Better games typically take 3 years to depreciate fully; shabby and extremely low-quality games (*cough cough* Anthem *cough*) can crash to $20 inside of a year. Something I often see in news on the Epic Fail store is that some games do limited-time exclusivity there, where they make the distribution Epic-exclusive for 6-12 months with a pledge to release on other platforms later, usually after some depreciation. This puts Epic at 2 advantages: #1 they make more money per unit sale than anyone else ever will, and #2 they get a jump-start on sales, which allows them to saturate the market and leave fewer prospective buyers for other stores. For example, if you bought an exclusive at the Epic store on launch, you probably won't buy the game again on a different platform when exclusivity expires - that would be redundant, except if you're gifting to a friend or something.


Steam is not DRM. There are plenty of DRM-free indie games available on Steam. IIRC Steam charges developers a bit of extra money on top of 20-30% distribution fee if they want to deploy a game with Steam DRM enabled.

I've also seen some old games on Steam that are basically the GOG version with a Steam wrapper. Navigating to the game folder finds a bunch of files associated with GOG installers, so it appears that GOG is selling some of its installers on Steam to reach a few extra people and make some extra money.