I think I've covered this repeatedly before, but I want to be able to play the game without internet access and I want to be able to install the game whenever I want to. I don't care about the one game per one machine limit. I only play the game on one machine at a time anyway, and I don't pirate games unless I absolutely can't buy them due to their not being published any more. I absolutely don't want to have to repeatedly go back to a vendor I rely upon to make the game work because game vendors fad away in time and, more importantly, cease support for products that are no longer profitable to them.
Total possession of a game for me would be the kind of ownership that allows me to operate independently from the vendor of whom I have no interest from the moment I leave his store. It's such a simple concept. That's the way the rest of every single purchase you ever make happens (except rentals which aren't really purchases). When you buy a car you never have to go back to the dealer. Ever. Even if they offer free upgrades. Even if they go out of business. The buyer is his own master in that scenario. The same thing happens with console gaming. I can only speak about Nintendo and PlayStation (since I'm anti-Xbox), but after you buy a game from the store shelf you can bring it home to your internet-free cave or highway underpass and you can play the game there. You never have to contact Nintendo or Sony, and if both Nintendo and Sony were to self-destruct, well you could still play the game anyway. That's total possession. With Steam you have a glorified rental system. The real issue is that they don't allow gamers to buy games any more - only parts of games. That's the definition of non-total possession to me.
Is that somewhat clearer?