He's saying this because he knows Steam cannot reduce their cut without better curation because their business model relies on taking a big cut from loads of small titles. Epic can take a small cut because they know every game on the platform will sell well. In order for Steam to replicate that model they'd have to spend more money on curating & moderating their platform, which would negate the benefits.
This is, for all intents and purposes, him shouting "checkmate". They've already shown they can grow to the same customer size as other gaming platforms. He's already proven exclusives on their store can have equal or increased sales as other platforms. Those two points are no longer in contention, they are now fact. All he has to do now is prove to developers they have a concept that is stable and not just a flash in the pan.
What is good for developers is undeniably good for consumers. The problem with the gaming industry at the moment is that the money isn't going to the talent, it's going to the established heads who already had the money.
At the moment Valve is like a Victorian landlord, they can earn money just by existing because people rely on them, they have no motivation to maintain or invest in their "land" because it is a necessity that people use them to exist. Without competition, Valve would have little motivation for investments, they'd merely have to exist to earn 30% of revenue in the PC gaming industry.
Epic has certainly bullied their way into the "store industry" to disrupt this status quo, but the ends justify the means, in my opinion.
Imagine what the CPU & GPU industries would be like if AMD didn't exist, and it were only Intel & Nvidia respectively. No one would complain about the prices because no one would have a point of comparison. People would idolise these two companies because they're automatically the best at doing what they do regardless of how they do it. That's basically what the PC gaming industry has been.
