IN THE FIRST CORNER
we have the point that Steam is not only a plurality, but a majority of direct download sales, despite the plethora of other direct download distributors, and it's largely because of Steam's services: Nobody's playing on an even field, and while GoG, GG, D2D, etc, are doing okay, any inroads into the background-updateathon that keeps Steam always in the forefront of players' minds have been miserably unsuccessful (I'm looking at you, GfWL). Competition on these grounds is good for the reason that it'll force Steam or its competitors to provide better services than they do already.
IN THE OTHER CORNER
we have the point that Steam's convenience and ease of use is based mostly on the assumption that Steam is the only service of its kind around. Two Steams does not mean twice the service. On the contrary, two Steams is less service than one Steam, because they're competing for resources and are, inherently, duplicating effort. They're redundant. You don't run two lines to your house because there are competing TelCos. And since nobody's going to give up their Valve games (least of all Valve), everybody's pretty much relegated to having both Steam and Origin on if EA gets this thing off the ground. We're not switching to Origin. We're getting Origin on top of Steam, and that's not all for the good.
Now, I'm happy Newell's taking this like the shot across the bow that it is, but I can honestly see both sides of the argument. I want competition, but I don't see this competition as necessarily conducive to a better gaming experience on our end, what with having to install more always-doing-stuff-in-the-background ancillary software. So what say ye?