“What other media uses a single term to describe its audience? Movies use movie-goer, viewing public, or for enthusiasts, cinephiles. The printed word uses “readers,” or for the dedicated, bibliophiles. For music, you’ve got listeners, concert-goers, audiophiles (which is something else entirely), and much more. There are levels of gradation here, allowing different descriptors for different levels of interest and dedication.

The word “fan” applies to all media – it implies a rabid dedication to something specific – a musical artist, an author, a director. But for games, we have one word in common usage, and that’s “gamer.”

Think about what that means, and how all-inclusive it is about a person’s life and interests. It’s a simple enough word to break down – it means one who games, right? But there’s nothing more to it. It defines someone who plays games, to the exclusion of all else.”

You turned his article into a chance to rant about hardcore gamers, but doesn’t the word “gamer”–as compared to terms video game “fan” and “moviegoer”–imply that that is all you do? The word gamer did not come into vogue until the mid 90’s I recall, and by that time video gamer were on a steep decline from the phenomenon they were throughout most of the 80’s. I’m no hardcore gamer, but I hate being called a “gamer” as if I could be defined by just one of my interests in life. I’m a video game “player”, a “fan”, an “enthusiast” at best.

Did you not read what he wrote? It was totally a hardcore whine-fest. It is not the word ‘gamer’ he dislikes but ‘hardcore gamer’. Since no one, including Nintendo, seems interested in a broad view of video games, gamer is heard more of as ‘hardcore gamer’ in people’s minds today. All the problems he cited with the word ‘gamer’ are problems associated with the hardcore.

The solution is to stop making games for the hardcore and make games for everyone. That removes social stigma.