Not going to talk about art or so, but just jumping in to comment his claims...
It was impressive to see how Ebert's point-by-point short rebuttals were, in fact, extremely superficial, and often nothing more than red herrings, totally missing the whole point. It's actually disapointing, from such a critic.
He simply doesn't even care about making a detailed and well thought article, and too rapidly dismisses video games.
He also misses the point that it was about what games *could be*, not what they *are*.
Finally, he doesn't even really try to respect his oponent, and some of his "arguments" really come as crass.
You can grab his latest book!
That said, if I had to develop games, I'd worry about being sure that the game fits with both my wishes regarding content and experience, and the necessary results to have my business thrive and provide enough ressources to create even more games.
The art debate would be a very side-topic issue to me, mostly irrelevant.
But still a fun one to listen to.