I read that entire review after reading the actual EULA, Steam's own Subscriber Agreement, and consumer protection laws across the EU, US, UK, Australia, Canada, and Japan. Here is a point by point takedown of every single thing mentioned in that review. I am linking the review below so everyone can see what I am responding to:

https://steamcommunity.com/id/spexceptional/recommended/1962700/

---

---

Steam literally forces you to accept this exact clause on every purchase you make on their platform. It is not Krafton. It is not Subnautica 2. It is Valve. And now every digital storefront on Earth. California's AB 2426 law literally forced Steam to put the "you are buying a license" warning directly in your checkout cart because people have been confused about this for over a decade. You treat this like it is a Krafton specific villain origin story when it has been the universal standard for 15 years across every digital game ever sold. Every publisher on Steam operates on a license basis. If game licenses made a company uniquely evil then literally 100% of every publisher on Earth is evil. The reviewer treats this like it is a shocking discovery specific to Krafton when it has been the universal standard for over 15 years.

---

The game is in Early Access. Krafton wants people to understand that footage they see may not represent the final product. This is a consumer protection for viewers, not a suppression of content. Virtually every game beta, alpha, and early access release has identical or stricter restrictions. Steam Early Access itself recommends that developers do exactly this. The paid platform restriction exists because the company does not want third parties monetizing unfinished content. Every beta has this. Look at Activision's Call of Duty NDA periods, Epic's Fortnite guidelines, Microsoft's Xbox Insider Program. All of them restrict monetization of pre-release content.

---

This is the standard Terms of Service enforcement clause for every online game ever made. If someone cheats, the company needs to be able to ban them. If someone scams other players, the company needs to be able to remove that account. Without this clause online games would be unplayable within a week. By the way, the same clause is in Steam's own Subscriber Agreement. Valve can remove your entire library, with every single game, without your consent. But because it is Valve doing it, it is apparently fine? The burden of proof is not on companies to prove they will not abuse something. The burden is on abusers to prove they did.

---

This is boilerplate for every online service, not just games. Your Steam Subscriber Agreement says the same thing. Your Google account says the same thing. Your phone's carrier says the same thing. Your bank says the same thing. This is not a gaming specific problem. It is how companies legally protect themselves when they need to update terms.

---

This is for debugging, anti-cheat, telemetry, and crash reporting. Every game does this. Steam itself does this when updating games. Every game launcher does this. This is how companies fix bugs, ban cheaters, and collect crash data to improve the game.

---

This is standard DRM. You can not share a license across devices simultaneously. This prevents one person from buying once and letting 10 people play. Steam's family sharing and game sharing features work exactly the same way. This is the same logic every software license on Earth uses.

---

This is the fundamental principle of intellectual property law. You can not inject your own code into someone else's proprietary software and claim ownership of the result. If you could, anyone could steal commercial software by "modifying" it. The IP holder owns the underlying code, and any derivative work that interfaces with it remains subject to the original license. Every modding community operates with explicit company permission, not without it.

---

In the EU and UK, unfair contract terms have no binding force. In Australia, the Australian Consumer Law specifically protects against terms that create a significant imbalance. In the US, courts regularly strike down overly broad non-disparagement clauses in consumer contracts. Your Steam review rights are protected by consumer protection law in most jurisdictions worldwide. This clause targets coordinated smear campaigns and defamation, not honest reviews. It is already essentially unenforceable in many countries.

---

Fraud is prohibited. Deception is prohibited. That is not a radical concept. That is how every commercial relationship on Earth functions.

---

0.6 hours played. You are upset that an online multiplayer game prohibits bug exploitation? If you found a bug that duped resources or let you instantly kill other players, would you want the company to NOT be able to punish that? Without this clause, every exploiter could sue for being banned.

---

Every multiplayer game on Earth has this. Call of Duty bans for macros. Valorant bans for cheat engine. Apex bans for third-party tools. Without this clause, the game has zero protection against cheaters. It is not controversial. It is the minimum.

---

Your claim that "death" or "killer" would get you banned is cartoonish exaggeration. The clause targets hate speech, racial slurs, sexual harassment, impersonation, not generic words. Every game uses profanity filters. Every single one.

---

If you could use someone else's account, account theft would be legal. This clause exists because account sharing and account theft are real problems.

---

Your "hmmmm i wonder why" sarcasm is amazing. VPNs enable price manipulation, buying games from cheaper regional stores, ban evasion, early access regional violations, and fraud coverup. Every major game company has this restriction. It is a fraud prevention measure, not a conspiracy.

---

"Spam" has a clear legal meaning. Automated content scraping and mass posting is abuse. The clause protects against exactly that.

---

ALL CAPS. "I AM NOT KIDDING." This clause targets illegal activity, harassment, and harmful conduct. Courts, not Krafton, define what those things are. Legal precedent has existed for decades.

---

This is the most dishonest misreading in the entire review. The clause does NOT say your fan art belongs to Krafton. It says in-game creations, structures, characters, save data, belong to them. Your Minecraft builds belong to Mojang. Your Fortnite islands belong to Epic. Your Sims families belong to EA. This has been the standard for over a decade.

---

The game is in Early Access. The entire point of Early Access is that there will be bugs. Complaining that a company can not guarantee a bug-free Early Access experience is the funniest part of this review.

---

In the EU, clauses that limit liability for significant damages are unfair and have no binding force. In the UK, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 invalidates such clauses. In Australia, the Australian Consumer Law does the same. In many US states, courts strike down excessive liability waivers in consumer contracts. The reviewer treats it like it is a legal smoking gun when it is boilerplate that may be void in most jurisdictions worldwide.

---

He admits he is "not sure if the EULA counts as documentation" but then concludes it does and declares the player gives up the right to sue. In Germany and most of the EU, EULAs are only valid if known to the customer BEFORE purchase. The EU Digital Content Directive says EULAs are only enforceable if they do not breach reasonable consumer expectations. In the UK, the Consumer Rights Act does the same. In the US, courts frequently strike down blanket waiver clauses that are buried in legal documents. A clause that says "by reading this you waive your right to sue" would fail in most jurisdictions worldwide. Period.

---

Steam's refund policy, which governs ALL Steam purchases regardless of the publisher's EULA, allows refunds within 2 hours. The reviewer played 0.6 hours and chose not to use it. Steam's refund policy is the governing rule, not Krafton's EULA. And in the EU, you have a statutory right to a refund under consumer protection law regardless of what the EULA says. In the UK, the same applies. In many other countries, statutory refund rights override private contract terms.

---

If you sue a German company, you go to a German court. That is how jurisdiction works. EU consumer protection rules allow consumers to pursue companies in their country of residence. In the UK the same applies. In Australia, the Australian Consumer Law allows consumers to pursue claims locally. If you are not in California, this clause likely has no enforceability for you.

---

Blizzard. Riot. EA. Activision. Microsoft. Google. Amazon. Apple. Every major tech and gaming company uses this clause. It is boilerplate American corporate law. And in the EU, many courts refuse to enforce arbitration clauses in consumer contracts entirely. In the UK the same applies. In Australia, courts have struck down mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts.

---

That is literally how the US DMCA works. If you want to file a takedown, you must provide your real identity. This is federal US law, not a Krafton invention. The EU has its own copyright enforcement rules, the UK has the same.

---

The EULA itself is a legally binding contract. Minors generally can not enter binding contracts without parental consent. This is why mobile games require parental consent for anyone under 18. It is standard, not sinister. And in most countries with age ratings above a certain threshold, parental consent is required anyway.

---

Your name, email, IP, device ID, and country are collected by literally every online game. That is how servers function. That is how anti-cheat works. Without IP addresses, there is no multiplayer. Without device IDs, there is no anti-cheat. Steam itself collects all of this. So does every launcher. So does every online game. Cloud services and marketing agencies are third-party hosting services that every game company uses. They do not own their own data centers. They use cloud providers. That is the modern internet. And if you are in the EU, you have GDPR protections. If you are in the UK, you have UK GDPR. If you are in Australia, you have the Privacy Act. Data collection itself is not controversial - it is how the internet works.

---

Krafton lost a $250 million lawsuit to the developers of Subnautica 2 for breaching their own contract. The judge ruled in favor of Unknown Worlds Entertainment. And as of April 2026, Krafton is no longer even listed as the publisher of Subnautica 2. The game has been moved back to Unknown Worlds Entertainment on Steam. The reviewer wrote an entire essay attacking Krafton's corporate authority over a game they just lost legal control of. He is yelling at a publisher who no longer publishes the game he is complaining about.

---

Consumer protection laws in most countries around the world share the same fundamental principle: contract terms that create an unfair imbalance between consumer rights and business rights are void. In the EU, the Unfair Contract Terms Directive explicitly says this. In the UK, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says the same. In Australia, the Australian Consumer Law says the same. In many US states, courts strike down such clauses. A massive portion of what the reviewer cited as "terrifying" and "evil" is literally already unenforceable around the world under existing consumer protection laws. He spent his entire play session reading boilerplate text that may be legally worthless in most jurisdictions, then quit without actually playing the game to treat it as a terrifying asylum document.

He also has to think about whether the whole thing is even applicable under the consumer protection laws of his own country and most other countries in the world. But who knows what is? And in any case, it is worth thinking about. Stay safe out there, kids.