I don't see why your examples don't fit the given explanation? Based on what you said, I think you actually agree with his point of view and just misinterpreted

I don't see why your examples don't fit the given explanation? Based on what you said, I think you actually agree with his point of view and just misinterpreted it? His point is that games are NOT means to an end, they are things where the whole point IS to interact with them (Minecraft creative mode is a perfect example of this). To put it another way: The ideal way to make a powerpoint presentation would be to think of it and have it instantly materialize. On the other hand, what's the ideal implementation of GTA? As much as we say that the point of the game is to "beat it", if we just showed you the victory screen, then it would ruin it. The same goes for Dwarf Fortress, Human Resource Machine, CS:GO, etc. If you just jump straight to the end result, you miss the entire point: the interaction itself.