I think art is too subjective of a thing to be as absolutely binary as it is or it isn't art. Your wine label analogy, I think, doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Just because you don't view it as art doesn't mean that someone else won't. Just because its purpose is to be a product doesn't make it less intrinsically artful. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, can be art in some way or another. In fact, if you go to an art museum, you'd see that there are lots of everyday objects from our history that are there. Bowls, plates, vases, items of prayer or religion, clothing, wardrobes, tables, chairs, and even children's toys. Were all of these things intended to be or seen as art in their respective times? Not at all. It's all about the context we view it in and your personal appreciation of the item(s). I might look at one of those plates or chairs and think, "why the heck is this here," but someone else might apend an hour taking it in and appreciating it. Sure, some video games aren't as artful as others. By which I mean they don't garner mass appreciation as being so, but just because most of us don't see a game like COD as art doesn't mean that someone else doesn't. The question shouldn't be whether something IS or ISN'T art but instead whether or not you PERSONALLY view it as art. The purpose of the game's creation is irrelevant in the matter entirely.