But you are not making another copy with physical goods. You are giving/selling it to someone else. Those things aren't analogical (for the same reason making a copy isn't "stealing" it's at most copyright violation). There is a reason for this distinction. Making physical goods costs money, making digital copies is free (basically). If we accept the premise that copyright holder can exercise control over it there is no reason why you magically should be able to make exactly one copy for someone else once you stop using yours.
The author also doesn't control your life, quite the contrary the court wants to control the life of the author by forcing them to implement ways to move the game to another person/computer/account.
I think selling a computer where the game is installed to someone else is more akin to selling a book or a car or whatever and I doubt anyone would oppose that.
The physical printing costs of a book are a negligible amount of its cover price. Saying that because it's cheaper to make a copy of a digital good it needs new rules doesn't seem like a strong argument.
The author's problem are entirely self inflicted in this case, as it is his own DRM that is making him do extra work to allow transfers.
The author also doesn't control your life, quite the contrary the court wants to control the life of the author by forcing them to implement ways to move the game to another person/computer/account.
I think selling a computer where the game is installed to someone else is more akin to selling a book or a car or whatever and I doubt anyone would oppose that.