How'd you find it?  I googled "You're not a real gamer" "rubang".

False: the wider the audience the more chance that an 'art' game could become profitable by finding its niche market within a wider pool of potential customers.

That's definately true.

Gaming has been Hollywood for a long time. Look at the number of sequels and remakes that there are. Also, look at the number of FPS out there. They don't usually have to be very unique to do well. Think of them as the latest Michael Bay movie. Also, Nintendo has now tapped into excercise gaming which is now the fastest growing genre. Think of them as the equivalent of chick flicks. The art films like Okami don't usually don't do that well, but win a lot of awards.

Actually no, it doesn't take 'art' to accomplish entertainment, both however can co-exist within one medium comfortably, as seen in just about every other form of medium from books to movie to music.

In fact you can argue fairly convincingly that any medium that contains the former will invariably contain the later.

 Many things that are considered art are not considered entertaining by the mass market, and many things that are considered low borw by the critics are extremely popular

Yeah but they can coincide. Mainstream pop culture can be high art. Ask David Bowie, the Beatles, and Nintendo.

Now we're arguing over definition :) and in either case the argument is still valid.

One man's art is another man's entertainment, and neither is required for the other to exist but both do anyways.

Critics don't decide what's art, they just decide what they think is good art (usually whatever's the most sophisticated). And they're generally pretty entertained by art that they think is good, even if most people aren't.

And on the other side, just because something is low-brow, unsophisticated, and popular, that doesn't mean that it isn't art.

I dunno, last time I checked art was quite entertaining thing. If it wasn't that way, why should I get involved with it in the first place?