And yeah, as WhiteElk said, that third party client, which is really popular- the reason I don't use their service for many games is due to what he said.  I know with Impulse, if they jack things up bad enough, and I have to dispute, my games aren't going bye-bye.   BTW, I'm not saying chargeback is the immediate option, that's an abuse of power- but if I really got hosed by someone, and it couldn't be resolved in a timely manner, I would. 

With that other client, if you got enough games from them they got you by the balls.  I am willing to get games on that client, but only with retail sales (which makes that client just an annoying DRM scheme), or games where you're just buying a serial you can take outside of that client (such as Mount and Blade games).   

At least for me, return policies and consumer protection does affect sales.  

The best thing to do is simple, don't buy games with ridiculous forms of DRM.  I absolutely LOVE the concepts behind RUSE, but I will never buy it because of the draconian requirements to play the game.  Same goes for Wings of liberty, no internet no play .. OK no buy.

If we don't feed them, they will die... the companies will just fail. 

That is the only solution .. that or make you own games.

The typical EULA says:
blablabla... not responsible for unintentional damage...

blablabla... IF YOU REJECT THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER YOUR PURCHASE, YOU MAY CALL (some number) TO REQUEST A FULL REFUND OF THE PURCHASE PRICE. 

(That is not UNIVERSAL, but it's in some EULA's.. two thrids of the ones I've read, roughly.).

I do consider EULA's slightly less palatable than a cancerous growth. I loved one; it basically said that if local laws prohibited some of the points in the license agreement, you had to return it. (They did... yet they still exported it here?).

There are some reasonable ones out there though... they don't ALL read like a contract with the devil.

True enough.  I vote with my pocketbook also.  Blood Bowl is a game I would have bought at full price, but Securom (and the nasty form at that)= no sale.  Civ V is a game that I won't buy at full price due to mandatory Steamworks.  I've passed on some games on Impulse due to DRM, and I bought SFIV off Impulse to support them using GOO instead of Securom (I don't consider GOO that bad- it's what Impulse uses mostly except that it's done at launch to me, which isn't a problem for a DD game)

Parts of a EULA are not binding, depends where you live in the world.

When are you guys going to get a court system based on fairness and justice and not for deep pockets. Stop milking the consumer.

..... I am still seething about the UGG boot decision.

It's important to keep the ruling in perspective. The Ninth Circuit is one of the more corporate intellectual property rights-friendly courts in the country and might not be representative of, say, the views on the Supreme Court. There will probably be an appeal.

The US were told to go screw themselves over that one.  The 'owners' of the name can legally be totally ignored in the place of origin of the product.  WE [Australia] coined the term 'Uggboot' as GENERIC and it was in free, legitimate use for half a CENTURY before the idiot distributor in the US decided to screw the US customers by trying to legitimize their switching to Chinese [crap] manufacture instead of continuing to use the original source.

It all got quite absurd when they wanted Oz to amend all their Dictionaries to make reference to the US 'owner' of the Trademark.

It REALLY should NOT have been registerable....as it would be the same as Jobs Trademarking 'Apple' and then telling the rest of the world you now have to call those round green things 'bananas'. [and he didn't 'quite' do that]

Now the Americans have to put up with poor quality, overpriced Uggboots.

Their loss.....I hope the US 'manufacturer' goes bust....US tourists to Oz can always get the 'real thing'....

Nothing is settled when a bought and broken legal system makes a decision. Simply ignore them. If you want to enforce a contract, present it to me before purchase(actually done by some now with DD systems and i except those) otherwise I take it as a clean purchase and will do everything in my power to use, sell, mangle and whatever the hell I want with said product.

Is that why McDonald's coffee cups don't say "caution! Content is hot!  Hot things burn you!  Getting burned is bad!" ?  Oh wait, they do.. even though everyone should know coffee is hot.. and hot things burn you.. and getting burned is painful.  Or if they didn't.. they surely could have researched it.  But that's simply not expected in this day and age.  It's why car manuals say "cruise control is NOT auto pilot" and explain it further.  

No, that's insane.  The morons that do things like ironing clothes they're wearing just need to be forcibly sterilized for the sake of humanity.  It's something anyone that deserves the oxygen they're consuming should be capable of figuring out on their own.  Reading ten pages of legal jargon and consulting a book case filled with case law reference materials to find out what your video game will allow you to do with it is batshit insane for the opposite reason.  Even merchants can't be held to non standardized licensing agreements under contract law, consumers have always been immune to it regardless unless it's presented at the point of sale.

It's all a matter of perspective.  Personally I think it's insane you need to agree to lengthy legal jargon just to play a game regardless of when it's presented.  I can't wait until I have to sign a licensing agreement to acquire a loaf of bread.

Also, I see those as incredibly similar to the warning labels placed on food / drinks.  They are there specifically to prevent lawsuits over seemingly obvious issues

All the games I have currently bought I could sell at will.  But if I were to buy Civ5 I would not be able to sell the game.  If I was caught selling that game (it is practical for them catch you because of new DRM methods), steam can lock out my account, preventing me from playing ANY of the games I have on their service.  I cannot buy Civ5 without also using steam.  That's one of a few reasons why I will never have any games on steam.  Not because of any value I place on a right of first sale; but because I resist that level of control over consumer.  And because I don't trust that human or mechanical error will not mistakenly take away my right to use a software license that I have legally purchased.  I don't want a watchdog between me and my purchased products.

So, the age of enforcing software license agreements is here.  So what kind of protections can consumers expect...  Is the government gonna dictate refund policy to vendors, or will they force publishers to print EULA warnings on software packaging.  I don't see either of those options being practical.  I suppose nothing will get done until after a costly string of lawsuits and counter suits.  And even then, are those steps even practical?  And whats to protect consumers from being forced to renew their license agreements after an unannounced period of time?  steams EULA is specifically written such that they have the ability to charge a second fee for the software they host.  steams EULA gives them the right to deny users access to purchased licensees for ANY reason.  And the way that steam has been set-up, grants them the ability to block users access to the software licensees they have purchased.   In some cases.... Buying software = agreeing to the EULA.  Agreeing to the EULA = accepting an unspecified loss of consumer rights.  Loss of consumer rights = ???

The Ninth Circus may have finally gotten one right.

Most EULAs do not have such a provision - and for good reason.  People want at least the appearance of ownership.  For the few that do state it, they better have the market cornered (as AutoCad seems to), or they will find themselves the 21st century version of Lotus.

Glass half empty.

The EULA IS the 'consumer rights'.  There is therefore no 'loss'.

Now, whether or not those rights differ from those of some other product is a different question.

People see EULAs as some signing away of your life - to the devil/whatever.  It IS no such thing as there is a fully legitimate and legal alternative.

Do NOT sign/accept/agree/purchase.

That is the ENTIRE 'rights' issue in a nut-shell.

Either the desired product is indespensible and the conditions of purchase are acceptable....or it isn't and they aren't.

End of.