I really think it is. If they aren't, where does the line of art and not art start and end? If a painting is art, what if it now plays music? Is it still art? What if it changes and moves? What if it has acting? Now it's like a movie, which is still considered art. What about when you have to press a button to make it work, making it interactive? Is it still art now? I don't get why the cut-off happens when it's made for a game console.
Animators in 3-D movies like Pixar are considered artists, but the team working on Final Fantasy game CG movies aren't. Both are in a business out to make money, so what's the difference? Besides, somebody painting or writing a book doesn't do it to be poor and have nobody see or read it either; that's their job and they need it to support them, too. Nobody makes a painting because they don't want it to be seen at least by someone, and nobody makes a game because they don't want it to be played. I don't see any differences here.
Of course, being "art" doesn't make it good or give it originality or merits automatically. Some will be better then others. But it still falls under the idea of "art" as far as I'm concerned.