Beamer wrote on Jan 23, 2013, 09:41:
No. People on this board get worked up incredibly over EULAs. Sometimes with reason. Sometimes not. When they mention restricting access usually not. Here is how EULAs usually go:
Attorney, probably outside counsel, writes it.
Attorney, inside counsel, stamps it.
Developer gets a copy, says "yeah, whatever," ignores it.
It goes out.

Outside counsel is trying to make sure it can't get sued for something that happens, so it includes everything. It wants to make sure that no one that gets banned for exploiting a bug (something that's valid to ban for in a competitive multiplayer game), so they write it in a way that makes it very difficult for someone to argue.

There's never any intent to abuse this, but it's someone covering their ass.

Beamer wrote on Jan 23, 2013, 09:41:
It's like the whole Instagram EULA thing. Again, Nilay Patel on The Verge, probably the only person I trust in analyzing EULAs, says that the one the internet set fire to Instagram for was actually a better EULA than the original. It had MORE rights for users and fewer for Instagram. It also spelled things out in plain English. But the original EULA was more obtuse, and it was there in the first place rather than a change that people looked to compare, so it wasn't something anyone complained about. People complained about the new, easier to read, more user friendly one, so Instagram went back to the old one. The one that gives them more control over your pictures and allows them to pass that extra control on to advertisers.