So they are not informed. No court would consider that sufficient disclosure of a poison additive. Common law can't be evaded by resorting to technicalities as in your caricature.

Its basis is informed consent, and that incorporates all of the context that goes into making a determination of whether that's present, including custom, reasonable assumptions, etc.

Notice what distinguishes your "fine print" hypothetical from the scenario I described:

This is a company offering a game with terms of services clearly spelled out to you, with you free to accept or reject their offer with full knowledge of what they are offering.

Note: "clearly spelled out to you" and "full knowledge of what they are offering"

Not "fine print", with the implication that no one is reading it.

>>Besides that I think that your viewpoint is completely nuts and no well functioning society could exist like that.

You have not explained why you think this, so this is not a particularly constructive track of discussion.