You want DRM-free? Well shut up and pay :D If I were in his position, I would probably set a higher price point for DRM-free version that I host myself as well - paying bandwidth costs money as well, and setting up a working system for customers to pay trough is not really hassle-free either.
All the costs has Steam too. And Steam wants a cut for this too. You forgot? Okay, I am willing to pay more but not twice. He is driving customers to Steam and to DRM. I stay with it.
... How is that in anyway bad? He makes more sales and therefore a bigger profit than before. I would even say of he sold those games for $5 he would make an even bigger overall profit.
And gamers can choose what they want to pay (or how much they want to support him). Steam puts a link to his website on their store page (directly to his shop).
Again how is that bad for anyone?
You see this is how rumours start. He says his indent is to maximize profit. You misread it and think he is actually maximizing profit. But nobody knows because there is no second world to compare, right?
My argument was: If he gives up on offering competitive prices on his own website, he might loose profits because of the cuts he has to pay to third party agents, which would otherwise contribute to his own profit if they exceeded his own additional costs. We will never know by the way. But it could be bad for him.
And it could be bad for me, because the premium I would have to pay for the version I want is too high. It could be lower.
I would find it better if publishers would put competitive prices on their webshops, i.e. only slightly higher or same price than what they want on Steam. For me it looks like they prefer to sell over Steam and they prefer to give money to Steam. But then my image of the average customer is one of a very price-sensitive person. I might be misleaded by my own instincts.