So what started off as being a simple answer to a simple question on reddit lead me to write out a rather large wall of text. I'd rather not let my time and effort go to waste in one corner of the Internet, so I'm posting my response here for the bored and/or curious. Feel free to leave your response on the state of DRM, possibilities for change, etc. Just no flaming!

Alright, I'll try to make it make more sense. Perhaps a small(apparently not) history-like lesson will help you at least understand why trends are going this way, even if you can't agree with it. (Hopefully anyone even makes it through this wall of text).

1) Let's go to the era of cartridges. When you bought or were going to buy a SNES game, there was no talk about whether you could resell, trade, buy used, or anything. There was no talk of DRM. For publishers and developers to protect their game, they knew that 1 game = 1 owner, so DRM wasn't a concern.

2) Now let's move to the start of the digital era. Take the PS1/PS2 for example. Being put on a simple CD, and with home computers becoming more and more common, it was no longer safe to say that 1 game = 1 owner. With many people having optical drives in their computers, and the Internet as a distribution network, piracy was a real threat for the first time in the game industry. Publishers and developers started to get nervous about protecting their work/investments, so they implemented barriers to simply stop people from copying/burning game CDs. Of course pirates found ways around this.

3) Okay, now let's take the current era. Digital downloads are common, people have become used to the idea of having digital merch tied to their accounts (due to Steam/iTunes/etc). Up until now, people have treated video games just like any other physical media, allowing you to resell, trade, buy used, etc. But with the world moving digital, what's the next step?

4) Complete the transition from Video Games = Physical Media to Video Games = Digital Media. What are the benefits of this? Well, the consumer no longer needs the disc. They don't need to worry that disc will get scratched, or that they'll forget it when they go over a friend's house. They don't even need to worry about getting up to swap out games from the disc tray. Consumer is very happy. But wait! Publisher steps in, worrying that everyone will be able to install games and play it as much as they want. Rental services would essentially become "free" game hotspots. How can this be stopped?

5) Periodic authentication. AKA 24-hour DRM.

Now, I realize that your question has yet to be answered, but hopefully you can agree that the succession of events is at least logical. Now back to your question:

Why do you want to not own the games you buy?
Short answer:
I don't.

Longer answer:
I don't, but I understand the necessity.

Full answer:
Everything in this world revolves around perceptions, and this situation is no different. From a consumer perspective, if I buy something I want it to be mine. If I buy a book, I should be able to do what I wish with it, right? Yes. Does the same thing go for games? It used to, but now... not quite.

Up until the current generation of game consoles games could effectively be treated as physical media, whether stored on CD's or not. Publishers funded it, developers made it, and consumers bought it. End cycle. With the Xbox 360 and PS3, everything changed. Devs were no longer done with a game once it was released. Instead, games had to be maintained, bugs fixed, and updates crafted long after the game had been burned onto CDs and distributed across the globe. With the advent of online multiplayer, servers had to be bought and similarly maintained over time. DLC has become more and more common, so not only are Devs fixing code, but they're adding loads of new material onto a "finished" game. All of this costs the Publishers money. And lots of it.

With this generation, the "Sell one and done" approach was no longer viable. Publishers had to be spending money on games long after they received the income from the initial sales: something had to be done. Now everyone starts experimenting with free-to-play systems, online passes, and the like, to find something that works in this new ecosystem. They are met with limited success, so they see used games as potentially lost profits and they try to get in on the action. Negotiations with companies like Gamestop fail. To eliminate the used game market, the easiest and most reliable way is to remove the "Physical Media" aspect of video games, which is actually possible in these days. What's the best/only way to reliably enforce Digital Media? The Internet.

TL;DR / Conclusion:
I want to truly own any book or movie I buy. But then again, once the makers of those books and movies are done making their product, they are off the hook. After the initial investment of their time and money, all they get are the profits from the direct sales and the profits from the various ways of getting royalties. Back in the day of cartridges, this was true of video games as well. But with bug fixes, updates, DLC's, server upkeep, and probably more things I'm forgetting, that's just not the case in the current generation. And it will be even less so in the next generation. The reason I embrace this system is because Video Games have all but made the transition from goods to full-fledged services. And if the only way to police these services is for the Publishers and Devs to restrict my "freedoms", then so be it.

In fact a throttling of the used game market may result in multiplayer servers staying active longer, support lasting longer, and game-breaking bugs fixed quicker. Not for all games of course, but definitely for some. It will also make consoles (at least the X1) more likely to have Steam-level game sales. Not immediately, but as the economics of the situation plays out it will gradually trend in that direction IMO.

That's why I can deal with not "owning" what I buy.

/rant