Still my main argument stands strong. Video Games are not Art, as long as there is the word GAME in it. And also as long as it is an industrial process and the the goal of the gaming industry is sales & profit.
The size of the art industry is equal to, if not bigger, than the gaming industry (ignoring any possible bubbles). Art can become an investment, but an investment can also turn into art.
There are many portraits made by order of legislators, soldiers, kings, merchants etc. by famous 17th-19th century painters that are exhibited in art galleries all over the world.
A sport or a game itself might not be labelled as art, but many parts of a sport or a game are experienced as if it was art. For example: an incredible dribble by Messi answers to your defenition of art, as there is a story, a message, visual beauty, a set category, an idea, it cannot be copied, it cannot be altered etc.
Would the fact that the objective is to win/score overrule all this in order to not define it as art, even though the end score of that particular game will not be remembered, but that incredible dribble will? If Maradonna's dribble against England will still be remembered a thousand years from now, would it turn into art then?
Poetry, films, novels, music, sculptures, paintings and buildings mostly emerged out of necessity, without the desire for art. Even an old sport such as boxing is defined as "the noble art of self-defence" today.
(Playing) video games might not be considered as art now, but as time goes by, anything will become art.
Therefore: art does no abide by rules, but by time.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
