phinehas:
If a game is only a game if it has inbuilt goals to accomplish, then what becomes an activity that has none but is treated as one by the person playing? To that person, it is a game. To you, it isn't. In actuality the only thing you are arguing for is that your specific, subjective definition of 'game' is correct, and others have risen to refute you. Ultimately, though, the idea of gaming is defined by whomever plays it.
Consider an argument about musical tastes. One person likes, say, opera, and the other likes, say, R&B. Objectively, from an outside standpoint, neither genre is better than the other; there is no objective standard for one to be superior to the other. 'Music' is simply defined as 'rhythmic sounds that convey emotional feelings in the listener'. Each person may have their own reasons for liking their respective genres, but ultimately their reasoning is based on how the music made them feel, and on their emotional thought linked to the game. One may convince the other, but not through rational appeal - only through emotional appeal. In this way, definitions of 'gaming' suit the persons who hold them, but may not go further than the inside of their skull. I'm inclined to agree with those who say that UniSand is a game to most of those who play it. That means, to those people, it IS a game, regardless if you agree.
Look at the full Webster's definition of 'Game' (
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/game). Most people here would consider UniSand to be under definition 1)a)1); your definition of game is limited to definition 3)a), which is more inclusive and would exclude UniSand. This is due to your unique and particular point of view. However, UniSand CAN be defined as a game by the parameters of those falling under definition 1a1, so UniSand CAN be a game to someone.
In short, the definition of 'game' includes a wide range of potential experiences and definitions. Each one may be held - correctly - by someone, but in direct opposition to that held by another. And so, both are right, but to each other, they are wrong. Ultimately, there is no right or wrong, because we write those rules.