"One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them."
There are a couple of major problems with this paragraph.
1. The is an implied assuption that if you can win at something then it cannot be art, an assuption that he provides no evidence for. Why cannot winnable games be art? I've frequently heard the term "poetry in motion" applied to sports people. Prior to Duchamp, found art was not art. How about conceptual art? Was that art a hundred years ago? Art is a moving target and in some cases it is perfectly reasonable for a piece to be art for one group of people but not for another group. A personal piece fro the artist to a friend for instance.
The blanket assertion that anything winnable cannot be art fails due its breadth.
2. He is using the term "game" in two different ways so that there is a generalised "Computer Game" inclusive of immersive games, and then the subset of games which excludes imersive games which then become representations of Films, novels etc.
Here he shows the flaw in his argument by effectively claiming that anything that can be considered art cannot be a game and anything he considers a game cannot be art.
He has decided the result before a ball has been kicked:-)