I have a couple of things that I need to mention.
1: People who are saying it's good that developers/publishers get to make more money through EGS. The truth of the matter is that they have been able to make more and more money per unit over the past 10 years.
1A: Companies are spending less money on physical goods compared to the 90's and early 2000's. Covers are made of cheaper, thinner plastic and barely any games come with manuals anymore. Right out of the gate they are saving money on printing services and plastic manufacturing costs.
1B: Digital digital distribution has in creased in popularity. This is saving companies outright on physical goods. They don't even need to pay for the manufacturing of or royalties for CD/DVD/blu ray/SD card.
1C: I don't know much about this but advanced software tools make it far easier, faster and cheaper to do things.
1D: Games are generally available on far more platforms, hence a larger purchaser pool. If a game doesn't release on all platforms, it's not long before it hit's all platforms. In the 90's and the early 2000's this wasn't such a common thing.
2: People say that EGS is better for indies. This may or may not be true. If Supergiant Games has to shut down or if they don't release any future games on PC we'll know for a fact that the EGS platform is not a good thing. If they continue to release games on EGS with 12 month exclusive deals than we know it succeeded.
The fact of the matter is that indies have been around forever, games on the Atari/NES/Master System/SNES/Mega Drive were basically made in basements, not all of them of course but quite a lot were. Those days were the medievil days of indie development and a big name publisher was essential. These days the market for indies is the best it has ever literally been. You can tell this with the sheer absurd amount of indie titles that release every month. You would never need to play a AAA game ever again with the amount of titles out.
You could say that EGS is bad because it is fracturing the user base, we know there are die hard Steam fans (myself included) that won't purchase a game on EGS. There could be potential hundreds and/or thousands of sales lost due to this. On the other hand if a game was released on Steam only, judging by how successful PC gaming has been, there would only be a small amount of people who won't buy a game on Steam. Generally from disgruntled old school PC gamers who hate Valve because they forced digital distribution on the world. If the game was released on both Steam and EGS at the same time it would get maximum exposure and both parties would happily pay for it.
That's my thoughts on the above two topics anyway.
*EDIT*
3: And yes, the good old topic of more revenue = more money spent on more games. As mentioned above, triple A companies have already been saving money in many various ways. Even with these savings their game releases have become more anorexic. Look at the game history of EA, Activision and Ubisoft, look at what they released in the 90's and early 200's compared to what they release now.
EA relies on Battlefield, The Sims, Madden and FIFA. Maybe Need For Speed if they can get that franchise back on track.
Activision relies on a single game, Call of Duty.
Ubisoft rely on Ghost Recon, Rainbow 6, Assassin's Creed and Far Cry.
The more money they make the less games they make.