Fair enough, Ruminator. I see what you’re getting at. In that case, as I think has been mentioned earlier in this thread, I expect it’s simply because few folks have figured out how to make money at playing games. There are a few folks who survive on tournament money, but they’re very few. It’s still overwhelmingly a recreational activity, so someone who spends as much time as possible playing games is likely to been seen as wasting time that could be spent productively.
Of course I only remember this after the edit window. Remember this Far Side cartoon? It stings, but it’s true. You might get lucky earning money as a tournament player in a competitive game, but it’s not nearly as likely as earning money as an athlete.
Folks who can parlay their gaming interest into a job are less subject to ridicule. The guy who heads a successful gaming review magazine/website may be just as big an addict as the previously-mentioned Cheeto-stained lardball, but he’s figured out how to make money off it and so fewer people would look down on him. It all comes down to productivity.
That really depends on how you look at it. Competetive gaming is very hard to earn a living at and it’s a very rare person that can do it. But I’d wager that there are a lot more video game journalists, who effectively get paid to play games*, than there are pro athletes.
- I wish I could find the quote, but I know the Penny Arcade guys will say they get paid to play games as opposed to making the world’s greatest webcomic.
Absolutely. And if you’re obsessed with films, you can make a decent living as a film critic. But if you, personally, can’t turn it into a job, you’re going to be treated with a measure of disdain.
Heck, this even applies to accepted things like sports. If you’re obsessed over football and talk about it every day, or even play it every day, but you’re 40+ and wouldn’t have been picked for college or pro football even in your heyday, that’s more than a bit sad.
“Gamer” is an extremely new word in English in the context we’re using it. If people have different understandings of what it means, that’s to be expected.
Look at the shitstorm you can create by calling someone who illictly breaks into computer systems a “hacker.” People still bitch that that word shouldn’t mean what it actually used to mean. We haven’t been using “Gamer” as long as “Hacker,” so don’t get too hung up on what people mean by the word.
If I may play devil’s advocate… if everyone plays video games, and soon that will be the case, then why do you even need to describe someone who plays video games as a “gamer”? Most people drive cars, but you don’t call a person “driver” unless it’s pertinent to describe her actions when she was actually driving a car. Everyone eats, but you don’t call someone a “diner” unless they’re eating right now, or were at the time you are describing. If you want “gamer” to simply mean anyone who ever plays video games, it’s completely useless as a word except in the immediate sense of “driver” or “diner.”
If you want “gamer” to be a more specific descriptor, it would naturally have toi assume the sense of someone for whom video gaming is a particularly prominent hobby, at the very least. I’d disagree with the notion that “gamer” means someone obsessed with video games - I always assumed it to mean someone who particularly enjoys playing a wide variety of video games, as opposed to just occasional play, and some gamers might have balanced lives while a few might be addicts. But it has to mean more than just “a person who at one point played a video game” or it won’t mean a thing.
I mean, I’m with you; I genuinely enjoy video games and have for many years, so I’d call myself a “Gamer,” but I’m also married and have a job and play sports and have other interests and had lots of girlfriends before I got married, so I don’t meet the “obsessive nerd gamer” description.
I play a lot of TF2 (amongst other games), which is a big multiplayer team-vs.-team First-Person-Shooter. Being good in TF2 not only requires a lot of “twitch” based skills, but also a huge amount of strategy & tactics - skirmishing, coordinated attacking, counter-attacking, gambits, withdrawing, flanking, stealth, subterfuge, and territorial control. Because the team is composed of various “classes”, taking advantage of the unique strengths of each class, and exploiting the weaknesses of the enemy are also crucial. Don’t tell me that isn’t frontal-lobe type stuff.
I agree, in a sense. However, I find it intriguing that for some people, “gamer” refers to the extremes of gaming, considering there are quantifiers in place that are… well, I thought they were universal : gamer, casual gamer, hardcore gamer. If a gamer is taken to be the basement dwelling, 20 hours a day species, one dreads to imagine what a hardcore gamer could be.
Similarly, the statement “nonono I play games but I’m not a gamer at all, I’m a person-who-plays-video-games” sounds oddly defensive. I think Cervaise’s post is the one that “disturbed” me most. Dude, not only do you play games, you own a toy steering wheel for them. You’re a geeky casual gamer, admit it ! 
Meh. It’s still far from being the case, otherwise there wouldn’t be such a moral panic about them. Comics may still be geeky, and rock music may remain The Devil for some whackjobs in the US, but precious few are those still accusing them of corrupting the youth, and those who do aren’t taken seriously. Video games… I’ll play “orgasmic over-the-net rape simulator” for $200, Alex 
:rolleyes:. Or, in a less over-the-top example : the mere concept of video game addiction.
It’s true that a significant portion of people up to their 30s play games, but within the older crowd, defining gamer in an us versus them sense is not meaningless.
I’m totally a gamer. I was the poster child for bullied, unpopular high school nerds, and I’m still socially ill-adjusted in a way that’s not 100% voluntary (although I do have the bare bones of a life - friends of both genders, friendships with benefits, dream job). While games (be they video-, roleplaying-, war- or board-) are far from being my sole hobby, they certainly feature proeminently in my life, and gamer is one of the few “communities” I readily identify with. Nerd pride !
Which brings me to the point : “gamer” doesn’t necessarily refer to just video gamers. Playing D&D also makes you one. Playing Diplomacy or Settlers of Catan certainly makes you one. Chess… nah, probably not. To me, gamer is the descriptor for people past their childhood & teens who still love and enjoy activities the mainstream (whoever the fuck that may be, we’ve never met) considers juvenile. It’s the answer to the unstated, bemused or sarcastic question : “Aren’t you a little too old to be doing do that ?”
I know this thread is supposed to be about people who “dedicate their life to gaming” but I thought you would forgive this off-topic post:
Computerworld article: Boss by day, gamer by night: Tech leaders’ favorite video games
… the guys mentioned in that article unfortunately do not dedicate their life to gaming. However, I still think the gamers can use it as ammunition for convincing skeptics how you plan to rule the world.
Again, forgive this sidebar tangent… carry on.
CEOs ? Who cares ! We’ve already got Vin Diesel on our side !
(seriously though, it’s an intersting article, thanks for the link)
I think the problem is you, and a lot of others who think this, are wrong. As mentioned above, “casual gamer” is meaningless as a term because everyone is at least a casual gamer. There’s no reason for such a term to exist, except I guess for hardcore gamers describing normal people to other hardcore gamers. That leaves gamer and hardcore gamer, which are synonymous to most people, in my experience at least.
How is it meaningless? It describes what kind of gamer you are. By your argument, ‘gamer’ should be meaningless, as just about everyone is these days. From there, the distinction that matters (depending on context, anyway) is how deep into games you are.
But to distinguish downward to casual implies that the “default” is something more than casual. Most people game casually. Some people less, or not at all. Some game more than average. Yes, as you said it depends on context. The context I’m working from is the perspective of the average young person, where casual is the norm, and the distinction is between “normal” and “gamer.” From there, further distinctions would be non-gamer or hardcore gamer.
Don’t try and apply logic to semantics or etimology. Down that road, madness lies.
The distinction exists because the word emerged from the “gamer” side of society, back when gaming was not so widespread and the eminent domain of outcasts for whom, yes, gaming was more than casual. The casual distinction became needed when the hobby became more mainstream. Whether or not that makes sense now that everyone does game to some extent (an assumption which I strongly deny, BTW) doesn’t matter.
It’s only a matter of time. Right now 97% of teenagers play games and 53% of adults.
That doesn’t quite work for me. To put it in another frame I’ve been using in this thread, look at posting on the board. Someone who maybe makes one post a week is an occasional/casual poster, someone who generates 10-20 posts a day is a dedicated/heavy/hardcore poster, but both of them are posters. Both of them can say “I’m an SDMB poster.” The word by itself tells you little more than that they post on a message board. Similarly, the word gamer tells you little more than that they enjoy playing games. When you want to know how often or how seriously, that’s when you haul out the adjectives.
And 81% of adults between 18 and 29, which is the demographic I’m talking about. So, not literally everyone, but nearly.
I really wish one of these days I could post once and be done with it. I always, always have other thoughts after I hit Submit Reply.
This one’s spurred by Justin’s post. Some folk here are looking at the word gamer as a significant label. To have earned it, one must be involved with games on a level beyond the average person. As more and more people play games to some extent or another, it becomes meaningless, because there’s no distinction between a gamer and a normal person.
But consider that although a staggering percentage of adults beyond the age of 18 has a driver’s license, the word driver hasn’t lost its meaning. Gamer will have the same connotations. Asking someone “What kind of gamer are you?” will be like asking “What kind of driver are you?” “How often do you play games?” “How often do you drive?”
But gamer has already acquired a slew of connotations beyond just the “a person who plays games”, and those connotations are different inside and outside the community of greater-than-casual gamers. To the “gaming community,” gamer means the same thing as “driver.” For better or worse, to those outside the community it means somebody really into games, who buys into a gaming lifestyle and may be hardcore and/or a geek. So either the gaming community (whatever that means) will have to convince the outside world to change the way they’re using the word, or they’ll have to switch to the definition used by the majority.
I’m seeing parallels with the whole “Trekkie” thing here, actually… it’s like saying anyone who’s a fan of Star Trek is a Trekkie, when some guy who just kinda likes to follow Deep Space 9 would never call himself that, and would use that term only to describe someone who owns a pair of Spok ears. Gamer has connotations, some negative, that will be hard to shake.
Bosstone, you’re not looking at it from others’ perspectives.
I have to agree with msmith537, RickJay, Grendel’s Father that when I hear the word “gamer”, I think of it as a non-casual gamer by default. The four of us didn’t have a secret conspiracy meeting to decide on that definition of “gamer”. It’s just how society has conditioned us with regards to that particular label. It’s an organic process how that word enters our conscious with the connotations we attach to it.
I agree that when you hear “gamer”, it means nothing without the qualifier of “casual vs hardcore.” You are correct – can’t argue with you. But we are correct too. There’s really no point in trying to correct our usage of “gamer” because there’s nothing to rectify. Maybe it’s a generational gap thing. It doesn’t matter.
As a related example, I’m very serious listener of classical music. Casual listeners of classical music might say to me, “I like classical music too like Bach.” To nitpicking fans, Bach is actually “baroque music” and not “classical music.” Is the casual listener wrong to call it “classical?” Actually no, because “classical” is correct enough to distinguish it for him. But “baroque” would be the correct label for me. To go on a crusade and correct everyone’s label of “Bach” to “baroque” would be pointless.
Everyone will have their personal interests that requires ultra-refined subdivisions of labels (like “hardcore gamer”) but it is not necessary to force those distinctions on others. You most likely are using non-exact labels for non-gaming hobbies that others would shudder at. However, your “misuse” of those labels is also not “wrong.”
Does the specific and non-specific versions of “gamer” make this thread a little messy? Yes, but that’s no enough reason to try and “fix” everybody’s usage of the term. You couldn’t do it you tried. Imagine how many of the 6 billion people on the planet are not using the word “gamer” to your satisfaction? You’re gonna have to live with the fact that others misuse your “gamer” label and (gasp!) they are also “correct.”
Hey, relax, I’m a descriptivist too. You’re making it sound like I’m trying to insist it’s the only correct usage. It’s how I see it, and to an extent I’m attempting to find a common ground, or at least make sure we understand where the other stands.
Further, I’m not saying that’s necessarily the usage now, but when those teenagers grow up, that’s how I predict the word will shift. Hell, back when cars were new I’m sure the term ‘driver’ was viewed with negative connotations as well; there must be something not quite right with the folks who attempt to work on and operate those dangerous machines when they could be using a nice reliable horse for transportation. Obviously it has no such connotations now because automobile driving is so widely accepted.