How is it possible to get so much wrong in such a short post?

Feel free to prove me wrong, everything I stated was fact.

It's true that I didn't buy the StarCraft II computer game just for the box and the plastic coaster within.  But on the other hand, it's a long established practice, and one I fully support, that the physical product is a transferrable license to the content within, either on paper or on disk.  TRANSFERRABLE.  The concept of "ownership" to me implies the power over what is done from that point on with the product, which is why I hate non-resellable games.  Let me go into detail below. 

What I get from what you said is that your position is that there is only one actual "property" of StarCraft II, and every game out there is just a little piece of it, all tied together by ethereal strings and you're paying Blizzard to hand you a string so you can have access to Blizzard's property. 

I, on the other hand, think that (using books for an example) the book is the physical property, which is bought by the customer and owned by the customer, to do with as he pleases, and which contains a piece of the intellectual property, which is owned by the author/publisher/whatever.  In this case the book (which you OWN) contains the string from the last example's metaphor (the strings being the IP, and which you DON'T own), but the property containing the string is completely in the control of the customer, and the author has no right to take that string out of the property which is not theirs, and no right to control what is done with that property, including reselling it to someone else who would then own that property and have access to that string. 

I admit that some publishers are treating their games as being the first type (your idea), to control what you can do with the string, because they say it's still theirs and you're just paying to hold it, and they have set it up so that you can't hand it to someone else.  I hate that.  I think that they shouldn't control the string anymore.  On a practical level, since publishers are capable of making their games fit your definition, that may mean your idea is factually more correct, and any control I have over the strings of my games is at the sufferance of publishers.  But morally, I'm sticking with my version. 

P.S.  So your position is that, morally, the hierarchy would be (bad to worse):  free pirated stuff --> used stuff --------------------> pirated stuff that people pay for ... right?

P.P.S.  So in that metaphor, piracy is creating counterfeit strings.  That's how it creates property.

I have to disagree with blaming consoles for the fact that most PC games don't use cutting edge graphics.

Fact is that despite what the author is trying to say, not every PC gamer has a cutting edge machine.

Lets not kid ourselves, the most successfull PC developer is Blizzard, last I checked they didn't release their games on consoles so that's not what is holding them back and despite that their games don't go full out using every last bit of power on your machine.

The reason is simple, they know that to have broad appeal you can't target the high end PC only...

I had a computer during the NES/SNES era.  They were called 286/386/486.  They mainly used DOS operating system to play games on and there were such classic like Command & Conquer, Magic Carpet, Sim City, Sim Theme Park, Warcraft, etc...  Just because you or your friends didn't have a computer during that era didn't mean others weren't gaming on the PC.  DOS gaming was decently popular back in the day and not some barely used system.  My most found memories of PC gaming would be playing against my friends on a 14.4 or 28k modem with games such as Duke Nukem 3D and Red Alert.

Let me just say this to make it clear, I am totally agreeing with you that the used market is just fine.I also like your string analogy and fully agree with it to view it as a form of property.

I didn't make this clear enough, but what makes you buy a book or game is the experience you had with it. The entertainment and joy, if you will. When you pass your string onto the next person, you don't lose the value, utility if you wish, that you gained from the book/game unless someone hits you on the head and you forget about it. Therefore you don't just transfer the value (this is the only way to compare ideas to physical goods, more in a second), but you quite literally duplicate it. Now there is someone else out there who receives value from the same string. The creator's product is that utility you gain from the game which you jsut doubled. He sees no reward for the duplication of utility.

This is actually very similar to physical goods. If you take a car as an example. Its value is the ability to get you around, and to have fun driving if you are into it. Once you sell it, you have lost the value of the car. It's gone, and you no longer have it. You would have to make a copy of the car, then sell it (counterfeit), for you to be able to retain its value, and have someone else also have its value.

Wow, just did some research, apparently there were more than 10 million computers in the U.S when the NES was out, never knew that.

Anyway...Scratch that, barely anybody had a PC during the NES / SNES era. I didn't have a computer until 2002, I don't know anybody that has a PC before 1990, but then again, I do live in the UK where computers probably weren't as popular outside of offices.

Anyway, I am sick to death of PC fanboys thinking that the PC is the reason gaming exists now, that isn't true.