If by "real work" you mean force time distance, then suuuure. The entire software industry does very little "real work", since it doesn't take very much force to move the keys on a keyboard only a little bit down.
Take my Assassin's Creed example. Consider all the electricity used to run their computers, the food and shelter needed for engineers and marketers, the raw materials needed for game parts and distribution. These resources are essentially burned or are outflows of the system, while providing very little inflow (that is directly or indirectly contributing to the creation of real wealth). The result is a net outflow of real wealth of the system.
As more and more people shift to such jobs, productivity gains in "net inflow" work will be partially distributed to those working in "net outflow" jobs.
I'm also not arguing that all software jobs are net outflow. Something like Google for example, could be argued as a net inflow, because fast information retrieval and distribution can greatly improve the overall efficiencies of the economic system.
If we assume that wealth can be measured with a non-negative real number, then we will set the zero point of the scale at total human extinction. If we set such a zero point, then we will assume that moving away from zero, that is moving away from extinction, is moving in a positive direction. Therefore, anything which contributes to the robustness and stability of the system could be argued as "wealth" or "valuable".
What about quality of life? I could make everyone survive better by locking them up in a room, safe from all outside hazards. Is that valuable?
Actual wealth creation is creating things that other people want to buy. This applies to games as much as it does to food.