Stop taking legal advice from your adversary!

I can claim that this comment is "licensed" such that, by reading it, you now owe me a million dollars. But does that make it true? If you really think so, PM me to arrange payment!

"Since when is a license owning the game" is a nonsensical question, because the entire concept of the "license" is fiction to begin with. (In the context we're talking about, of goods as opposed to services.)

Buying a copy of a copyrighted work has always meant buying a copy, from the dawn of copyright law straight through to today. It has never legitimately meant "licensing" anything.

• You buy a paper book, you own that copy of the book.

• You buy a music record, you own that copy of the music.

• You buy a DVD of a movie, you own that copy of the movie.

You have always owned the individual copy (not copyright; that's a different thing) of the work you purchased. It has never been different than that.

The only reason copyright cartel shysters have weaseled their way in to pretend otherwise, is that (unlike those other forms of media), you have to copy the software to at least your RAM, if not your hard drive, in order to use it, rather than consuming it directly. Because of this, the shysters claim that you need some kind of additional permission to actually use the software you bought, instead of just admiring your shiny plastic coaster.

But guess what! That incidental copying has a specific carve-out that makes it not count for the purpose of invoking copyright law. In reality, there is nothing to license. The "EULAs" grant you no 'consideration' and thus fail to qualify as a valid contract. You own the individual copy of the software just like you always did, with your books and your music and your movies.