I think Steam just sold me a game that I can't legally play.

[ugle43]

Frankly, I think peoples criticism of OP is not well placed. EULAs may be binding, they may not be, but the people who create them certainly wants them to be legally binding, and try to pass them off as legally binding. Having them take responsibility for that and refunding stuff is the EULA is unusable and other ways of them taking the consequence of the EULA is a good thing, if they want customers to take the consequences of the EULA, they should do it themselves.

So please continue OP, continue making trouble for companies because of their EULA-bullshit, and don't listen to the people who think apathy is the best solution.

 

[AuronFtw]

He's not making trouble for any companies, he's just being confused. Raising a stink about a last-decade game coming with suggested third party software that then has a broken link somewhere in their website isn't going to change anything. You'd be silly to think it would. Nobody cares, least of all the companies.

 

[ugle43]

He's not making trouble for any companies, he's just being confused. Raising a stink about a last-decade game coming with suggested third party software that then has a broken link somewhere in their website isn't going to change anything. You'd be silly to think it would. Nobody cares, least of all the companies.

Nobody cares if only he does it, if enough people cause trouble for them, they start to care.

 

[Sarge034]

WHAT!?!?!? Valve's scum DRM "service" refused to refund your money for a digital good you didn't install because you didn't agree to the EULA? I wish I could say I was surprised.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

WOW that's a lot of replies. Thanks all!

It is not Steam's job to oversee the 3rd party elements in their products. It is for the publishers and developers task.
This is not a con. The publisher has just been too lazy to talk with Steam about the 3rd party 3rd party element. Steam can not just go and change the store page pull a product (unless it is breaking the law or the contract).

There is a 3rd party DRM element warning on the store page (It is stupidly small and in the side, under supported languages). That is legally enough - unless you live in EU.
But the purchase was under legal contract, no one got conned, no one cheated. You might feel shit about it granted. Steam should supply more information about 3rd party elements involved with their products - granted - they don't have to, but should.

(It is stated in EULA they do not take responsibility of 3rd party elements- hence why I had a huge fight with them about U-Play for From Dust and few fights over GFWL, both resolved after long arm wrestling - To my benefit. I got full refund for the From Dust purchase, because it was breaking law - they updated store page quickly after we solved the issue. GFWL was sorted in different manner)

But if you live in EU you can invoke customer rights protection of your country and ask assistance to get complaint registered to ECC. This isn't hard as you would imagine, it just takes time. FCCA is really good at it at least.

Just take the credit and buy something nice with it. That is quite much all you can.
People really should read the EULA and ToS of services like these....

This is an awesome post, thanks. I agree with most of it.

Let me get this straight, you just returned a game (a half-way decent one too) not because you thought you'd get in trouble for playing it, but because you thought you had to agree to terms that didn't exist anymore? As someone who is in customer service, I guarantee that the rep that handled you will be telling this story about his customer to his friends for a while.

Quite possibly, but that doesn't make me wrong! There's a piece of software that specifically states its function to include providing ads, but comes with no privacy policy? Are you seriously saying that you'd go ahead and install it? Because if so, that's INSANE. They could be scanning your entire hard drive, installing a rootkit, and giving your data to Doubleclick, Adserver, the RIAA, MPAA, CIA and NSA, for all you know! Yeah, they're probably not... but am I supposed to take it on faith here?

A lot of people seem to think that my problem is that the privacy policy for the software doesn't exist, as a purely legal technicality. To clear this up: it's not. If a company says they're going to serve me ads, but don't tell me how they're doing it or what data of mine they're storing, I get very nervous indeed.

Steam straightup says they can't give you a full refund (I.E. actually giving you your money back) because you're purchasing electronic goods, which are instantly delivered to you and cannot actually be returned, other than just deleting it from your library. Them giving you Steam Wallet credit is not "fishy". You're lucky they even did that much.

According to their ToS I am. Whether or not they're "in the right" as far as good customer service goes is another question. Personally I don't have an objection to taking the refund as a "steam credit".

But look at it like this - I haven't installed the game. I'm using their software, which records exactly what games I've installed and when, so they know it. Plainly I'm not trying to scam them, so why WOULDN'T they give me a refund? I haven't asked for anything like this for the other games I've brought from them (which have no similar problems).

So you are THE guy that actually reads this bollocks. I along with 90% of the population simply click "I agree" and I go on my merry way

You really shouldn't... most of the legalese can be skipped over, but some of the privacy stuff is damn scary. And it's not just an academic issue. And I'm not talking about stuff like the Sony rootkit fiasco (that was hidden software on audio CDs that took advantage of Windows Autorun on administrator accounts, installed illegally without a privacy policy of any kind. And honestly, if you start installing media players, games and browser add-ons on your computer's administrator account, you're asking for trouble.) I'm talking about stuff like games software that scans your hard drive and sends information about your data back to a central server (yes, that actually happened, and everyone who installed the game legally agreed to the EULA beforehand.)

I think you've made a bit of fuss over nothing, honestly. I have never read the TOS's of any game I've installed, I assume that the publishers/developers have made a reasonable request in the TOS and just click accept. I leave it to others to alert me to any weird EULA's and such (like the EA origin incident a while ago). But in this case I don't think there's a problem.

Also I think steam refunding you in store credit is a pretty standard procedure, nothing fishy about that.

Another thing, I didn't get a 404 error when directed to the IGN agreement, I got sent here:
http://corp.ign.com/policies/user-agreement

I'd disagree that a program that uses ads not having an up-to-date privacy policy is "nothing", but oh well. I agree about the store credit thing.

As for the IGN agreement - that doesn't specifically deal with "Gamespy Comrade" (also it's a link that I found, not the link that was in the EULA itself). I don't know if Gamespy Comrade has a different policy or terms or anything, because the information is missing.

well, let's look at this at a different angle, why did you purchase a game you did not do the research on before you bought it. Is it their fault you didn't look into the game to see if you where able to play it be it the graphics or the legal agreement?

So is this a question of steam sold you or a question of look what I bought.

I agree with this. As I said above, you CAN check the EULA before you buy the game, but you can't do it through any direct link provided in the Steam store. I found it through googling - not through Steam's own search function - despite the fact that the EULA is provided on Steam's own website!

Having said that... I bought four games in the same sale, at the same time. I had no problems whatsoever with the other three (and I've had very few problems with Steam in general before now). I've bought over thirty games from Steam in the last several years and I've never had a problem with any of the EULAs before now. After this I'll probably be more careful.

WHAT!?!?!? Valve's scum DRM "service" refused to refund your money for a digital good you didn't install because you didn't agree to the EULA? I wish I could say I was surprised.

They refunded me with a "store credit". I'm not going to argue with that for £4.99, although it's not ideal. This won't stop me from using Steam - I don't think it was their fault in the first place that this happened - but it might make me a little more careful in future about checking the ToS BEFORE buying the game.

He's not making trouble for any companies, he's just being confused. Raising a stink about a last-decade game coming with suggested third party software that then has a broken link somewhere in their website isn't going to change anything. You'd be silly to think it would. Nobody cares, least of all the companies.

It's sold "as new" and the third-party software isn't "suggested". According to the EULA at least, it's mandatory (although a lot of people have said that it's not. Anyway, I no longer own the game so I'm not likely to be able to test this out.) And again - it's a program, serving ads, with nothing to tell me what it's doing with my data. Who in their right minds WOULDN'T have a problem with that?

I agree with what you say about "changing anything", but that's really not what I'm after here. All I want from Steam is to sort out a problem that, according to their own EULA and several people who've replied here, would stop anybody who'd purchased the game from being able to play it without breaking the terms of service that they'd have had to agree to. I don't think that's too much to ask, do you?

This is going to seem blunt, but this sounds like you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Seriously, you're upset over not being able to view, because of a dead URL, the privacy policies of a dead program/service? A program/service that isn't even required to run the game?

Well I agree that it's hardly a world-ending issue. As regards the "program/service" though, there's nothing in any of the documentation that says it's not required to run the game, or that it's "dead". Again - it's a program that, according to its own description, SERVES ADS. Yet it has no privacy policy. That's not an academic issue, that's a case of "I don't know who the hell is buying my data from these guys or what they'll do with it".

Like with copyright law, what a company can demand of you legally is really out of date, I think there should be some sort of legal framework to determine just what you can and can't put in an EULA. But that will never happen

HELL YEAH! I wish that would happen too.

Anyway, thanks everyone for responding (including the ones who disagreed with me - that's what I was after, some other opinions!)

 

[Vigormortis]

Well I agree that it's hardly a world-ending issue. As regards the "program/service" though, there's nothing in any of the documentation that says it's not required to run the game, or that it's "dead". Again - it's a program that, according to its own description, SERVES ADS. Yet it has no privacy policy. That's not an academic issue, that's a case of "I don't know who the hell is buying my data from these guys or what they'll do with it".

That's a fair point, honestly. And sorry if my post seemed brash. (though I did give warning. ;D )

Still, EULA agreements in regards to 3rd party services that are no longer in use do not negate your ability to use the software you've legally purchased. And, given that the game can be played without installing the 3rd party software in question, you need not worry about any dubious "data mining".

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

Well I agree that it's hardly a world-ending issue. As regards the "program/service" though, there's nothing in any of the documentation that says it's not required to run the game, or that it's "dead". Again - it's a program that, according to its own description, SERVES ADS. Yet it has no privacy policy. That's not an academic issue, that's a case of "I don't know who the hell is buying my data from these guys or what they'll do with it".

That's a fair point, honestly. And sorry if my post seemed brash. (though I did give warning. ;D )

Still, EULA agreements in regards to 3rd party services that are no longer in use do not negate your ability to use the software you've legally purchased. And, given that the game can be played without installing the 3rd party software in question, you need not worry about any dubious "data mining".

Don't worry about it. Unfortunately it's an academic point now. Steam have refunded me.

I'm a bit bemused by why THEY didn't just point out that the game could be played in single-player mode without Gamespy Comrade, if that's the case (and many people here agree that it is.) You'd think they'd at least check. (Do they even have the means to do so, I wonder? Apparently not.) Instead they've given me a refund - and ok, it's via the Steam Wallet, but it's still a lost sale. Apparently it's standard procedure for them to issue a credit to the purchaser's Steam Account in cases like this - dealing with the query as quickly as possible, then sending out the standard response.

 

[senordesol]

Well I agree that it's hardly a world-ending issue. As regards the "program/service" though, there's nothing in any of the documentation that says it's not required to run the game, or that it's "dead". Again - it's a program that, according to its own description, SERVES ADS. Yet it has no privacy policy. That's not an academic issue, that's a case of "I don't know who the hell is buying my data from these guys or what they'll do with it".

That's a fair point, honestly. And sorry if my post seemed brash. (though I did give warning. ;D )

Still, EULA agreements in regards to 3rd party services that are no longer in use do not negate your ability to use the software you've legally purchased. And, given that the game can be played without installing the 3rd party software in question, you need not worry about any dubious "data mining".

Don't worry about it. Unfortunately it's an academic point now. Steam have refunded me.

I'm a bit bemused by why THEY didn't just point out that the game could be played in single-player mode without Gamespy Comrade, if that's the case (and many people here agree that it is.) You'd think they'd at least check. (Do they even have the means to do so, I wonder? Apparently not.) Instead they've given me a refund - and ok, it's via the Steam Wallet, but it's still a lost sale. Apparently it's standard procedure for them to issue a credit to the purchaser's Steam Account in cases like this - dealing with the query as quickly as possible, then sending out the standard response.

There's very little benefit for them to do a cross-check unless it becomes an issue. I'm willing to bet money that you're the only one who's complained about this. It would cost them far more (in terms of actual cost and man-hours) to skim through even 1 EULA, find the broken link, alert the manufacturer, and standby to receive the updated version (all the while, presumably, making the game unavailable for purchase due to an out-of-date EULA) and then updating the game with a new code; than just giving one litigious user his eight bucks back (which is store credit anyway, so no money actually has to come out of anyone's pocket).

I'm sorry, but at the end of the day; every issue -even legal ones- are going to get skimmed over by the most well-meaning, and honestly operated of companies if the cost of compliance outweighs the cost of non-compliance (That's why mines often just pay the federal fines rather than update their safety gear...it's just cheaper).

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

Well I agree that it's hardly a world-ending issue. As regards the "program/service" though, there's nothing in any of the documentation that says it's not required to run the game, or that it's "dead". Again - it's a program that, according to its own description, SERVES ADS. Yet it has no privacy policy. That's not an academic issue, that's a case of "I don't know who the hell is buying my data from these guys or what they'll do with it".

That's a fair point, honestly. And sorry if my post seemed brash. (though I did give warning. ;D )

Still, EULA agreements in regards to 3rd party services that are no longer in use do not negate your ability to use the software you've legally purchased. And, given that the game can be played without installing the 3rd party software in question, you need not worry about any dubious "data mining".

Don't worry about it. Unfortunately it's an academic point now. Steam have refunded me.

I'm a bit bemused by why THEY didn't just point out that the game could be played in single-player mode without Gamespy Comrade, if that's the case (and many people here agree that it is.) You'd think they'd at least check. (Do they even have the means to do so, I wonder? Apparently not.) Instead they've given me a refund - and ok, it's via the Steam Wallet, but it's still a lost sale. Apparently it's standard procedure for them to issue a credit to the purchaser's Steam Account in cases like this - dealing with the query as quickly as possible, then sending out the standard response.

There's very little benefit for them to do a cross-check unless it becomes an issue. I'm willing to be money that you're the only one who's complained about this. It would cost them far more (in terms of actual cost and man-hours) to skim through even 1 EULA, find the broken link, alert the manufacturer, and standby to receive the updated version (all the while, presumably, making the game unavailable for purchase due to an out-of-date EULA) and then updating the game with a new code; than just giving one litigious user his eight bucks back (which is store credit anyway, so no money actually has to come out of anyone's pocket).

I'm sorry, but at the end of the day; every issue -even legal ones- are going to get skimmed over by the most well-meaning, and honestly operated of companies if the cost of compliance outweighs the cost of non-compliance (That's why mines often just pay the federal fines rather than update their safety gear...it's just cheaper).

Agreed, obviously. Steam's sent me two e-mails and not even attempted to answer this point, by the way. Not impressive customer service. Basically they don't support the games that they sell. I can't blame them for not knowing this stuff regarding a six-year-old game. Wouldn't at least mind if they'd SAY something like that, or at least acknowledging the question, but then that would mean giving the staff some kind of responsibility beyond "copy and paste". Maybe I'm being harsh there, but that's the impression I'm getting.

 

[Easton Dark]

Wouldn't at least mind if they'd SAY something like that, or at least acknowledging the question, but then that would mean giving the staff some kind of responsibility beyond "copy and paste". Maybe I'm being harsh there, but that's the impression I'm getting.

No, that's accurate. Steam support is a series of macro keys on a keyboard. No effort is put into responses.

 

[ClockworkUniverse]

On the one hand, it's technically true that by the letter of the EULA you aren't legally able to play the game (since of course that requires you certifying that you've read a document that no longer exists).

On the other hand, even if that actually went to court (a pretty ridiculous assumption to begin with), the judge would just say "that clause in the EULA is unenforceable, because the document it required you to read was not properly made available" or something like that.

Really, I'd view this more as an example of how hilariously overcomplicated EULAs get than an actual legal issue.

 

[Zach Alexander]

if that actually went to court (a pretty ridiculous assumption to begin with), the judge would just say "that clause in the EULA is unenforceable, because the document it required you to read was not properly made available" or something like that.

Beat me to it. It's the responsibility of IGN to make that document available to you, and whatever legal issues might result from playing a game you haven't read the full terms of use for are entirely on them.

 

[Gigano]

There's nothing preventing installation of the game: "You should read this Agreement..." isn't a contract term, but simply an encouragement to the other party. Advice which is given in an attempt to strengthen the validity of the agreement, in that it can be shown that the consumer was encouraged to read the EULA (...in the EULA). You don't need to read it to be able agree to it, and indeed most never do.

It's actually perfectly possible to agree to something you don't know far more basic things about: If purchasing a plumber's services with the phrase "just send me the bill", that's generally a valid enough contract. Even though you don't even know the price of the service you've bought! You'll then simply have agreed to pay any price that isn't patently unreasonable for said plumbing service (...so always get a price on such services, in writing).

...of course, if no privacy policy exist, then there is nothing in the agreement allowing for personal data being mined. Meaning that the ordinary UK/EU law on privacy and hacking will govern the permissibility of any data mining made.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

With most games you only get to read the EULA after purchase. And in most western countries at least, the consumer MUST be able to read a contract before purchase. Otherwise the contract isn't legally binding. In other words, most EULA's aren't legally binding.

This a thousand times.

I can't sell you a product and afterwards show you a contract saying: "By buying this product before reading the contract you just automatically agreed to this contract... so gimme your keys and your wallet, sucker".

 

[Amir Kondori]

Maybe you can legally play it? Maybe the fact that the EULA is available elsewhere allows you to legally agree to the EULA when you tick that box even though the specific link they provide 404's?

I have no idea, i'm no lawyer. That's probably why you didn't get a reply about that from the support ticket either. The poor guy replying to you probably is no lawyer either. Of course, doesn't help your situation, but this seems like an issue that could spend months going through the court systems with no definitive answer, let alone from a poor IT bloke on the other end of the Steam support line.

To the best of my knowledge, the missing part of the EULA (the privacy policy for "Gamespy Comrade") isn't available anywhere. The nearest I can find is a privacy policy for a separate piece of software called "Gamespy Arcade", which is here:

http://www.gamespyarcade.com/legal.shtml

I did also find this:

http://steamcommunity.com/app/17300/discussions/0/846956740643279325/

Apparently if you "cancel out" of the installation at the "Gamespy Comrade" bit, the game still works fine. Don't know if I want to take some random forum user's word on that one though. In any case, I still have to agree to the EULA to install the game itself, and I won't do that when there's bits of it missing.

You don't have to install GameSpy Comrade and if you do you can uninstall it and play the game fine.

I understand your point but really I think you are making mountains out of molehills. I have the game, it is installed, and I can play it just fine without GameSpy Comrade on my computer.

 

[viranimus]

Its STEEM! What business do you have reading the fine print to begin with. You are supposed to scroll past it all and accept all the terms and conditions like a good little consumer lemming because of STEEM SALE PRICES!!!!

Shining the light on holes in the contract is grounds for valve to revoke your account completely. However so is calling Gabe a genderless syphilitic humpback whale, Not reaffirming your faith to the benevolent gaming God STEEM every 90 days, or that its Thursday are also among the "reasons" they have at their disposal for justification to revoke your account without recompense.

Moral to the story is that if you are actually concerned about the legality of what you buy on steem you would not be buying anything on steem since their ToS coerces you to forfeit legal rights by holding your purchased content hostage that steem has no legal right or legal standing to demand or way to enforce. By virtue of the client requiring non legal submission, and that client being required to access purchased content (yes I know some titles have work arounds) then effectively any purchase cannot effectively be played legally. If you look hard enough it is scary to see just how far the rabbit hole actually goes. It goes so far that most major distributors have the exact same provisions, so Steem is far from the only guilty party.

 

[Weaver]

All it means is the EULA is contractually invalid and you can't be legally bound by it if they decide to use it against you in court.

 

[Sarge034]

They refunded me with a "store credit". I'm not going to argue with that for £4.99, although it's not ideal. This won't stop me from using Steam - I don't think it was their fault in the first place that this happened - but it might make me a little more careful in future about checking the ToS BEFORE buying the game.

I just have a huge bone to pick with Steam. However, I'm well aware that they gave you in store credit which is why I specified "refund". I believe the practice of giving in store credit is just as anti-consumer as EULAs and always online required DRM. If a company knows that it can retain your money no matter how badly it fucks up than there is really no small recourse the consumer can take to punish shit service. Add on the fact that it costs Steam nothing to cancel the license of one digital good and provide another and they have no reason to care. I also believe it IS Steam's responsibility to make sure the games they sell are complete, and according to EA no game is complete without an EULA. Especially because they still want the EULA to be enforceable. I can guarantee that they don't care about all of it, but they do care about the parts that try to limit the legal options you could peruse against them. Whether these EULAs are legally binding and the like is a different conversation for a different day.

 

[Denamic]

I never read EULAs I'm presented with after I paid for a product or service. Not only out of laziness, but because as far as I'm concerned, the 'contract' was sealed once the transaction of money was concluded. I don't recognize any 'agreements' I'm forced to accept to play the game after I paid for it as valid.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

On the one hand, it's technically true that by the letter of the EULA you aren't legally able to play the game (since of course that requires you certifying that you've read a document that no longer exists).

On the other hand, even if that actually went to court (a pretty ridiculous assumption to begin with), the judge would just say "that clause in the EULA is unenforceable, because the document it required you to read was not properly made available" or something like that.

Really, I'd view this more as an example of how hilariously overcomplicated EULAs get than an actual legal issue.

if that actually went to court (a pretty ridiculous assumption to begin with), the judge would just say "that clause in the EULA is unenforceable, because the document it required you to read was not properly made available" or something like that.

Beat me to it. It's the responsibility of IGN to make that document available to you, and whatever legal issues might result from playing a game you haven't read the full terms of use for are entirely on them.

There's nothing preventing installation of the game: "You should read this Agreement..." isn't a contract term, but simply an encouragement to the other party. Advice which is given in an attempt to strengthen the validity of the agreement, in that it can be shown that the consumer was encouraged to read the EULA (...in the EULA). You don't need to read it to be able agree to it, and indeed most never do.

It's actually perfectly possible to agree to something you don't know far more basic things about: If purchasing a plumber's services with the phrase "just send me the bill", that's generally a valid enough contract. Even though you don't even know the price of the service you've bought! You'll then simply have agreed to pay any price that isn't patently unreasonable for said plumbing service (...so always get a price on such services, in writing).

...of course, if no privacy policy exist, then there is nothing in the agreement allowing for personal data being mined. Meaning that the ordinary UK/EU law on privacy and hacking will govern the permissibility of any data mining made.

With most games you only get to read the EULA after purchase. And in most western countries at least, the consumer MUST be able to read a contract before purchase. Otherwise the contract isn't legally binding. In other words, most EULA's aren't legally binding.

This a thousand times.

I can't sell you a product and afterwards show you a contract saying: "By buying this product before reading the contract you just automatically agreed to this contract... so gimme your keys and your wallet, sucker".

Its STEEM! What business do you have reading the fine print to begin with. You are supposed to scroll past it all and accept all the terms and conditions like a good little consumer lemming because of STEEM SALE PRICES!!!!

Shining the light on holes in the contract is grounds for valve to revoke your account completely. However so is calling Gabe a genderless syphilitic humpback whale, Not reaffirming your faith to the benevolent gaming God STEEM every 90 days, or that its Thursday are also among the "reasons" they have at their disposal for justification to revoke your account without recompense.

Moral to the story is that if you are actually concerned about the legality of what you buy on steem you would not be buying anything on steem since their ToS coerces you to forfeit legal rights by holding your purchased content hostage that steem has no legal right or legal standing to demand or way to enforce. By virtue of the client requiring non legal submission, and that client being required to access purchased content (yes I know some titles have work arounds) then effectively any purchase cannot effectively be played legally. If you look hard enough it is scary to see just how far the rabbit hole actually goes. It goes so far that most major distributors have the exact same provisions, so Steem is far from the only guilty party.

All it means is the EULA is contractually invalid and you can't be legally bound by it if they decide to use it against you in court.

They refunded me with a "store credit". I'm not going to argue with that for £4.99, although it's not ideal. This won't stop me from using Steam - I don't think it was their fault in the first place that this happened - but it might make me a little more careful in future about checking the ToS BEFORE buying the game.

I just have a huge bone to pick with Steam. However, I'm well aware that they gave you in store credit which is why I specified "refund". I believe the practice of giving in store credit is just as anti-consumer as EULAs and always online required DRM. If a company knows that it can retain your money no matter how badly it fucks up than there is really no small recourse the consumer can take to punish shit service. Add on the fact that it costs Steam nothing to cancel the license of one digital good and provide another and they have no reason to care. I also believe it IS Steam's responsibility to make sure the games they sell are complete, and according to EA no game is complete without an EULA. Especially because they still want the EULA to be enforceable. I can guarantee that they don't care about all of it, but they do care about the parts that try to limit the legal options you could peruse against them. Whether these EULAs are legally binding and the like is a different conversation for a different day.

I never read EULAs I'm presented with after I paid for a product or service. Not only out of laziness, but because as far as I'm concerned, the 'contract' was sealed once the transaction of money was concluded. I don't recognize any 'agreements' I'm forced to accept to play the game after I paid for it as valid.

...I think all of you guys are missing the point.

I'm not worried about being SUED because I didn't have the chance to read part of an EULA. (Yes, I know the thread title gives that impression... but that's a secondary issue to me. The legal part seems to be the most interesting aspect of the situation, but it's certainly not the one that worried me the most.)

I'm worried about my data being sold on the open market because I installed something that uses targeted ads as part of its service, but doesn't say a thing about what data it's using or how it's using it.

This isn't a legal point. This is a "I don't have a clue what these guys are doing with my data" point. For all I know, they could be sending records of everything on my computer to a dozen advertising firms. (Yes, this has happened before with other games.) That's not something I'm willing to agree to - legal or not.

And I get that you don't need "gamespy comrade" to play the game, however there's nothing in the documentation of the game that actually SAYS that. The EULA specifically states that you need to install it. If that's wrong, great! Unfortunately the games company didn't say that, Steam Support didn't say that, and now it's irrelevant anyway (I've already got a refund for the game).