Nah, that's not why we have complicated EULAs. We have those because corporations are trying to avoid ever having a third party examine their one-sided agreements with consumers.
Take for example the most common new element of EULAs, the "arbitration clause". By including this clause, corporations seek to have consumers forfeit any right to legal protections, no matter what. It makes it harder to sue for fraud or enforce a warranty or seek redress of damages. It says, basically, no matter what, you can't go to court, you have to face a quasi-governmental "arbitrator" who is chosen by the corporation. You can't be represented by counsel, you can't appeal. You are bound by whatever the lawyer who works for the corporation decides.
If the new trade agreements go through, such as the TPP, arbitration clauses will become much more powerful and more one-sided. This is what's called "corporate sovereignty", where a corporation circumvents the power of government to act in behalf of the consumer. In fact, it requires that government work on behalf of the corporation against the consumer.
EULAs are not designed to avoid having some poor guy eat for a year. They are designed to turn a freely-engaged transaction that supposed to benefit both parties into a one-way street. They ar e meant as a mechanism of redistributing wealth upward.