I'm not trying to change anything, but please tell me where I went wrong with my reasoning - I can't "escape my little bubble" as long as I'm blind to the world outside of it.
Very simple. To make Steam look bad on a non issue (really, better dev cut can't be worse) you are bringing a whole new different set of valuable into it. The range of sales.
You are assuming way too much regarding me. I don't care if Steam looks bad or not. To me they do look bad, or more to the point; worse than GOG, but I don't have some anti-Steam agenda. You on the other hand seems to get your panties twisted every time someone says something that might be taken as critisism of Steam, regardless of setting.
A "better" dev cut (in percentages) really can be worse, both if the selling price is too high and if it's too low. The former results in less sales, the latter in smaller profits per item sold - both money and demand are finite. You don't have to know much about economics to know that, yet you insist that a better dev cut can't be worse. What the "right" selling price is will vary, and one can only speculate what it might be, but this "different set of valuable" is required to get the picture we should be interested in: How much money do the devs actually receive.
This is ridicoulus because of (not limited to) three reasons:
1. GOG also make huge sales occasionally. The Gem promos started of with 75% off.
I know GOG do - I even said as much - but we both know it's not on the same scale as Steam. I don't know how many Gem promos have been 75% off - I can't remember a single one, but my memory isn't too good - but it's besides the point anyway; it's not common, and you know it. You don't have to browse the forums here for long to see multiple posts about people getting the same games that are offered here for less on Steam. Some of those posts are by you if I remember correctly (new release threads for instance).
You indicate that there might be more reasons, yet this is apparently the first that springs to mind; that GOG also have sales? I find that extremely weak.
2. Publisher set the prices for discounts, not Steam or GOG. If the dev (how is also publisher in indies) doesn't want to have a game at a lower discount then say 50%, the game won't see a bigger discount.
I don't know if that's always the case, usually the case, or rarely the case, but I do know that there are several games on GOG that are also offered on Steam. And, I also know that some of these games sometimes are sold at bigger discounts at Steam. I don't know how accurate it is, but several people seem to share the notion that more or less every game on Steam will at one point be sold with a discount larger than what is to be expected here at GOG. Regardless of the level of truth, people have expectations, and GOG/Steam will - if the discount price is set by the publisher - likely try to get the publisher to fulfill said expectations, at least to some degree. Expectations are after all a major part of what makes customers stay.
Regardless of if it's up to the dev/publisher or not, empirically speaking, Steam sales are different from GOG sales. Unused potential never filled any stomach.
3. And the biggest flaw, you make it sound like there is a finite number of games being sold no matter the price and because evil dewevil Steam is making a discount for their overhead, pubs suffer (Which is also pointless, because good Steam overhead is a good pub overhead). But the reality is that most game are sold that much, because of the low discount. In the end, a high discount is extremely good for a game because the added sales are bigger than the lost discount amount. And after the discount phase a renewed interest in the game is sparked for people willing to pay full price.
Therefore your example is not only contrived, but beyond ridiculous.
The number of games sold is finite, although it's less about the number of games and more about the time each takes to "consume"; time is definitely a finite resource. Yes, lowering prices (usually) increases sales, as buyers (generally) try to get value for their money, but it's not the only factor. $3 for a given game may well be great value for the money spent for me, but what if I have a backlog with dozens of games that offers better value for the time spent? Unless you're a "collector", chances are you'll pass even if the price is "right" if enough games are available for the "right" price.
I'm not sure how you can read what I wrote as I'm saying the price is irrelevant in regards to the number of items sold as I even made a point out of (some) Steam customers waiting for a sale before buying. Nor do I know what "evil dewevil Steam" is supposed to mean. I'll just chalk it up to you reading what you think I write ("as a Steam hater") instead of what I write.
Yes, looking at the big picture, good Steam overhead is a good publisher overhead, and since Steam is such a major player, it's the big picture that counts. Indie devs are not big players, however, and the big picture isn't necessarily that signifcant to them. It's like with taxes; the government may make changes that result in the exact same tax revenue, yet will affect different people differently; like significantly hurt a few, while the majority is insignificantly better off. I'm not saying that this is the case with Steam and indies - even though it makes sense for Steam to use sales on (cheap) indie titles to attract more customers who in turn might also buy some of the titles they make more money on - but I do object to your simplification of this.
All in all I find none of your cited reasons sufficient to label my statement ridiculous, so I guess I'll stay in my little bubble (that is oddly more detailed than your huge bubble).
If you still think I'm trying to make Steam look bad, that I think Steam is evil, or whatever anti-Steam sentiments you may want to assign to me, do yourself a favour and re-read what I've read with less prejudice - imagine you wrote it yourself if that helps (I do that myself sometimes; it's actually quite effective).