> we're able to pay developers a recurring revenue stream, as long as people are playing their game.

That's how normal game sales already work for non-replayable games.

Good indie games are usually more like $20. If you want to be in this service and make the same amount of money, you'd need your existing player count to only play your game for over 2 months, assuming the revenue split is the same (which you've left out). This is unrealistic; I'd expect people to play 2 or so games per month. Your service would need to make that up through a massive increase in advertising. This is already what publishers do, so you probably won't get any Annapurna/Devolver/THQ/etc games. Basically, you're trying to do what Epic did (make a new platform and subsidize dozens of games) without making a billion from vbucks.

> This way, indie games can achieve profitability with a smaller player base

Your service doesn't encourage this. People are going to be less likely to stick with a game, so you need more players to get the same revenue, assuming all else is balanced.

From the player side, people irrationally hate installing new launchers. The DRM thing is probably fine though. It'll depend on how often it breaks games and how much performance it takes.

My conclusion is this is Moviepass for games. Except it only has 11 games.