I like and respect Roger Ebert quite a bit, but here he's confusing the creation of art with how art is used.

He's judging a (potential) work of art by how it's used, rather than by what goes into its creation.

A game may or may not possibly be a work of art - I don't know.

But by Mr. Ebert's own yardstick (the use of the product), nothing hanging in any Museum is a work of art either.

All people do with the things displayed in Museums is to walk and look at them. How artistic that?

Ah, well ...