Where a game stop being a game and start being movie, VR etc.. ?

It's all about interaction: If you're playing a game where you just need to push a single button to advance then it's not a game. VNs for istance aren't games (they're not called "visual novels" for nothing), while games like Heavy Rain and the like are games by definition but feels like movies, meaning that there's a meaningful interaction from the player but the gameplay revolves heavily around the story, so they're more like interactive movies than games.

I disagree, is about gameplay, grand strategy, raising sim and point an click adventure games fit the idea of "game" way more than cage bullshit; gone home is not a game regardless of how "interactive" the whole experience is.
Interaction is a fucking stupid metric, a shitlaod of things that aren't games are interactive but zero things with heavy focus on gameplay aren't games

I consider having a failure state as a definitive part of being a video game, without a failure state or with only extreme cases leading to failure I stop considering it a game.

VR is fucking awesome for proper simulators, all the walking / rooms scale shit is a meme.

He never said they were bad, he said they weren't games.
VNs can be good too, you know.

That's why i said that those are games by definition but don't feel like it, because the issues are not the "amount" of interaction (or gameplay) but its quality. A walking sim IS a game, but it's a shit game because its gameplay it's pretty much always just a way to sell it to you as a game and not as a movie (also because making a walking sim is easier than making a movie). And that means the game's built upon its story and the gameplay is a consequence, but there's still gameplay so it still is a game, even if a shit one.
I mean i'm pretty sleepy right now, what i want to say is: Walking sims are games by definition, but they're shit because they could just be movies and literally nothing would change.

Games have a goal. Movies have an ending.

If the main appeal of the game is the gameplay then it's a game. This is why shit like The Last of Us is not a game, because Sonyggers only play it for the story/characters/cutscenes rather than the gameplay.

Interestingly it's also a shit movie and if it was an actual movie with no shitty gameplay in between it would have been critically panned and forgotten because even by Hollywood standards its quite mediocre.

Interactivity and a fail state(Fuck you David Cage).
Interactivity is key to a game being fun, that's why sandbox games like the GTA series and Garry's Mod are so popular.
They also need a failure state, all the way back to the most basic game, Tag, there's a failure state. Chess has a failure state, Checkers does, Pong, Super Mario Bros, Doom, Quake, Team Fortress 2. All these big deal games have a failure state.

But Movies do have goals and Games do have endings…

Like what? This doesn't mean goals for the characters it means goals for the player.

That happen after you accomplish the goal.

Missed chance

VR creates a number of new problems for traditional narratives. Instead of controlling a camera and directing the audience, you give them control.
In order to make a good film in VR, you need to create a world for the audience to explore. You can't exactly thrust their head around like you can with movies, at least not in a way that won't induce vomiting.
The problem with this is not everybody explores the same way, so there needs to be "gaps" which the audience can pause and comprehend what's going on. This means a level of interactivity so the audience can confirm they are ready to listen.
tl;dr VR isn't changing games into movies, but movies into games.

That's it in a nutshell; in order to be distinct from a "toy", or provide the kind of challenge that "interactive fiction" lacks, a "videogame" must have some state of failure that players will (generally) want to avoid.

For example, one of the earliest electronic games was Tennis For Two, programmed on a laboratory radar scope. There's something resembling a net, and a ball that bounces around after being 'served', but that's about it. Scoring is entirely up to the player(s), and the equipment needs to be reset to start a new serve.
As a counter-example, SpaceWar is often called the "first videogame", created over 50 years ago (also on radar equipment). As you shoot at asteroids and try to survive, crashing into any asteroid destroys your spaceship; for the first time ever, an electronic game had a defined point where gameplay ended (besides walking away from it).

The majority of indie Walking Simulators and VR Experiences only qualify as "toys" and "interactive fiction" because they lack a state of failure; no matter where you are in those games, the player's meaningful choices are either the equivalent of turning the page in a book, or quitting. No amount of interactivity or narrative context layered on top can change that.

I'd say Tennis for Two had an implied state of failure because the players were expected to know the rules of tennis. I mean any game that isn't a video game works like this, including actual tennis. If the ball bounces off of your side of the court in tennis you don't die or have it magically reset, the game is in the rules understood by the players.

Also, is a game that has a cheat code for god mode not a game because you can just turn that on and never enter the fail state?

Yes, cheat codes turn a game into a toy. But most players are aware of this condition and will avoid use cheat codes so they can have "fun".
So I guess the definition of the game also includes how willing the player is to follow the rules.

VR is just a display type, not a type of media. Knock it off with this meme.

Developer intent is what defines if something is a game or a VN/walking simulator/"experiences" or whatever.

The whole "fail state" thing is bullshit that makes no sense. It's pretty easy to think of games with no fail states and VNs with them. Take rogue legacy for example, death is part of the game and pretty much required to progress outside of challenge runs, so you never actually hit a proper fail state. Is it not a game now? And on the opposite example, is the addition of a bad end/death choice (a definite fail state) enough to turn a VN into a game?

And no, "implicit fail states" aren't a thing. If you think so, then everything is a video game, you just need to put someone retarded enough to not finish it.

No, games do not have endings. A game is just a set of rules. You can beat your opponent in chess, but you cannot beat chess itself (ignoring the fact that chess is theoretically computable). However, a movie can have goals if it's interactive. The interactive part of the movie can be a game. Being successful at the game ultimately triggers the ending of the movie.