You make a very well-articulated point regarding Locke, and the distinction between copyright and the First Sale Doctrine is spot on for traditional media. But your argument fails because it treats executable software as functionally and legally identical to a book or a painting. It isn't.

When Rembrandt sells a painting or a publisher sells a book, you are buying a static, physical object that you consume passively. You don't need an End User License Agreement to read a book or look at a canvas.

Software is completely different. A game isn't a static object; it is functional code. To even play a game, your console or PC must actively copy that code from the disc into its RAM to execute it. Because running software requires continuous replication, you must have a license from the creator to do so.

This is why the application of Locke's alienation of property doesn't work here. The creators never alienated or transferred ownership of the software to the consumer. They sold you a physical piece of plastic (which you own and can resell), but they explicitly retained ownership of the code, granting you a revocable license to execute it.

I'm not "defending perpetual control after the sale" as some grand philosophical stance. I'm pointing it out as the objective, legal reality of how the software industry has operated for decades.

Because consumers never owned the game, only the plastic delivery mechanism and a license to play, shifting to a digital-only marketplace isn't a theft of property rights. It’s simply the industry cutting out the plastic middleman. You can argue it’s anti-consumer to remove the secondary market for those plastic discs, but you can't claim it's "immoral" for creators to shift how they deliver a license you were already operating under.