These actions are always dismissed on the basis that they're not selling something important. But setting aside the question of whether that's valid, they are selling in exchange for something important.
> These actions are always dismissed on the basis that they're not selling something important.
No, it's on the basis that the buyer knew the terms perfectly well before the sale, and bought the thing anyway. The fact that it's a game that was bought just makes it even more unreasonable for the buyer to want to retroactively change the terms of the sale.
But it's reasonable for the same corporations to "update" their Terms and Conditions under your feet while your only recourse against is to completely severe the relationship? Which party has the power in this relationship? Why do you consider the "terms of sale" to be the only important aspect of contract relationships?
Are you also against regulations on food sales? Why can't a corporation just sell whatever bad and spoiled food they have and let customers decide by themselves if they want to be food poisoned or not? We do have rights to protect us, customers, in unbalanced power relationships.
Personal/individual responsibility only goes so far. If you like to be stomped by more powerful entities than you because you don't like governments, good luck. Just remind yourself you have never experienced a world where you don't have safeguards provided by your government to keep your life somewhat safe and somewhat more fair.
How would this work in more "classical" software where I only get presented with the EULA after purchasing it, downloading it, and launching the installer? Money was already exchanged. How could any contract made after that be enforceable? Wouldn't that mean you're obligated to retroactively give away rights you aquired through the purchase minutes before?
I can see why that argument might work for a laissez-faire libertarian, but we have innumerable laws on what is contractable. That this should be singled out specifically as something which shouldn't have any such protections seems in my experience to be attributable to the fact that people don't consider games important.
Besides which, I challenge your claim that the buyer knew the terms perfectly well. The terms are often dozens of pages long and written in dense legalese, with clearly little belief or intention that the buyer will read them, and arguably specifically to dissuade the buyer from reading them.
No, for money.
These actions are always dismissed on the basis that they're not selling something important. But setting aside the question of whether that's valid, they are selling in exchange for something important.