I think this is an interesting question, but the waters are muddied by those who desire validation of video games as something legitimate in society. I don't fault those people, I understand that desire, and have it to some degree myself, but I don't think the discussion is being done much service when the definition of what counts as "art" is anything that is a matter of creative expression, especially when the industry itself is just not that simple.

The fact is, not every example of something generated from personal creativity is art. Some of those things I would categorize as "products." They are items born of creativity, but for the purpose of popular consumption. There isn't anything wrong with that, but I think it is an important divide.

Art, in my view, is something generated purely for the expression. The creator has a message to share. Art makes no demand for acceptance, only to not be censored. It challenges the audience. It pushes boundaries. It refuses to define itself.

A product is pretty much the opposite. It is made to be comforting and familiar. It seeks to offend as few as possible to be as accessible as possible. It relies on easily-identifiable tropes and genres.

Video Games, like any medium, has a plethora of both of these. However, due to the inherent time and resource cost to produce a game, Video Games probably have a higher product:art ratio than other mediums except maybe Movies. It takes a lot more to single-handedly produce a video game then generate a manuscript for a novel, or paint a painting. If you need other people to complete the project, your vision will probably end up compromised, with an increasing likelihood the more people are brought on. That compromise is what turns "art" into a "product".