Is this a fallacy and what kind?

There is right now an ongoing business war going on between two major storefronts in the PC gaming market, Valve and Epic. Epic is persuading the publishers to sell by contract their games exclusively to Epic's storefront, and not to their competitor Valve and the rest of the smaller stores. Epic will guarantee them a bigger cut from the sales, a minimum number of sales and give them a monetary bonus. Most of the publishers have accepted the deal, and that has divided the PC gaming community into two camps, each one supporting their respective store with a variety of arguments.

I want to focus to a one argument used by the Valve camp:

1.It is generally a bad thing for a publisher to not be able to sell their game to any storefront they want.
2.A publisher made a deal with a store (Epic), to sell their products exclusively to that specific store.
3.The publisher made a bad deal because it cant sell their products anymore to any storefront they want for at least one year. (the exclusivity deal is for one year)

1 is a valid premise, because in a free competitive market every company needs to have the right to sell its products anywhere it wants and can, so that they can be accessible to as many costumers as possible.
2 is a fact, a company made the exclusivity deal, because they would make a bigger profit (based on the sales guarantees of the Epic store) despite losing a small percentage of costumers. This reasoning for the deal has been openly expressed by the company itself.
3 is a fallacy. Because the deal is not bad according to the company which is why it decided to make it in the first place, although it is forced to sell its products to only one store for at least one year.
4. There is a counter-argument to 3. There is the possibility that the company later in the year regrets for making the deal (the sales guarantees werent met) but is still obliged by contract to sell exclusively to the Epic store. Thus its deal was bad after all, because it wont be able to sell anywhere it wants its products because of the deal.

I would like to know if 3 is a valid fallacy. if yes, what type is it? is 4 a valid counter-argument to 3? it looks to me as a circular reasoning, but I dont know.

You are dealing with opinions and statements of fact here, no room for fallacies.

1.It is generally a bad thing for a publisher to not be able to sell their game to any storefront they want.

Opinion. This should be supported with arguments, then we can look at those arguments for fallacious reasoning.

2.A publisher made a deal with a store (Epic), to sell their products exclusively to that specific store.

Statement of fact... they either did or did not.

3.The publisher made a bad deal because it cant sell their products anymore to any storefront they want for at least one year. (the exclusivity deal is for one year)

Opinion and statement of fact. "The publisher made a bad deal" is opinion and "because it cant sell their products anymore to any storefront they want for at least one year" is either true or not (statement of fact).

So no fallacies I can see here. Of course, this doesn't mean the opinions are based on reason or what is stated as true are factually true.

Sounds like a question for a business attorney, not a logician. But good luck!