No Right Answer: Are Gamers Dead?

[JET1971]

I find sports fan(atic)s to be much more rabid when it comes to opinions than the average gamer but socially being a fan of sports is more acceptable than being a someone who enjoys and plays video games. Sports fan and gamer is the same thing for different mediums. It's a broad term that says this person enjoys this. Sports fans watch whatever sport is in season and has a favorite out of all the teams and gamers play many different games and has favorites. There is no difference except what they are fans of. And yet being called a gamer is used as an insult by people who do not play games and used as some badge of honor by many who do.

Saying "I am a gamer" should be the same as "I am a sports fan". It should mean I enjoy playing games for my entertainment just like the other says I enjoy watching sports for my entertainment. It should never be used to define who you are as a person and yet it is used that way.

 

[mmiki]

So, no, people have read what was written, and it wasn't about a death of a subculture.

Seems you missed things like this.

"All of us should be better than this. You should be deeply questioning your life choices if this [article from a non-gaming site about Zoe Quinn being harassed in the wake of her ex's allegations] and this [article from a non-gaming site about Anita Sarkeesian being driven from her home] and this [an article from a non-gaming site explaining the spread of Vivian James and how she exists because of spite] are the prominent public face your business presents to the rest of the world.

But they aren't. Abuse is a shitty thing being done by shitty people. It has nothing to do with gaming or gaming culture. When a radical feminist abuses someone on twitter (and oh boy there's plenty of them), you don't see me decrying all feminism to be abusive. It's a dumb argument that ,if anything, got me questioning my life choice of reading Gamasutra.

Had this been one website it wouldn't have been half as bad, but when other websites jumped on board the 'gamers are dead' ship it stopped being something you can wave off with your hand, it became a coordinated attack on the gamer identity. Most other sites didn't use this kind of vitriolic language, but the damage is already done.

Yes, how dare they criticize gamers for being douchebags to other gamers who want to talk about something other than graphics and cursory gameplay and look for actual meaning in the game.

You completely ignored the whole part of the article that I quoted that was filled with insults directed at gaming and gaming subculture. Someone who says those kinds of things loses the right to tell other people that they shouldn't be douchebags. It's an article that laments the tone of the conversation while engaging in insults and the worst of the re-hashed stereotypes. And that doesn't strike you as the least bit hypocritical?

And I'm sorry, but the journalists writing those articles have miscalculated. They all operate in a market economy and not a hipster paradise where they are the people that get to decide what's cool this week. The market ultimately decides what is dead and what isn't.

If you want to talk about something beyond graphics and gameplay and look for actual meaning, do it, but it's not a duty of your audience to be interested in what you want to talk about or what you personally find interesting.

Don't see the part where the writer calls all people who play games "socially inept lonely kids who are consumerist zombies".

Lets have it one more time because you missed it the first time around:

I often say I'm a video game culture writer, but lately I don?t know exactly what that means. 'Game culture' as we know it is kind of embarrassing -- it's not even culture. It's buying things, spackling over memes and in-jokes repeatedly, and it?s getting mad on the internet.

It's young men queuing with plush mushroom hats and backpacks and jutting promo poster rolls. Queuing passionately for hours, at events around the world, to see the things that marketers want them to see. To find out whether they should buy things or not. They don't know how to dress or behave. Television cameras pan across these listless queues, and often catch the expressions of people who don?t quite know why they themselves are standing there.

'Games culture' is a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction and professional life works that they can concoct online 'wars' about social justice or 'game journalism ethics,' straight-faced, and cause genuine human consequences. Because of video games.

Young men with plush mushroom hats. Socially awkward, professionally inept. They don't know how to dress or behave.
At the mercy of marketing companies, because they can't form their own thoughts.

I think my summation was correct, and this is not the last time this stereotype has been perpetuated throughout this clusterfuck that I've desperately tried to stay away from.

Here is the thing about that. Nobody is stopping anybody from playing their games. You don't have to participate in any discussion about a game that you don't want to. There's a lot of games I've played that I could write essays about, but I don't, and when somebody like, say, Errant Signal, makes a video about Civilization and the implications of gameplay that lies within, I don't have to get in a huff about it like some of the twats people in the comments do.

If you don't want to be a part of this, you don't have to. There will never be a requirement to participate in a big discussion about a game to play the latest AAA adrenaline rush. I don't sit in the frozen food aisle of my local grocery store yelling at people who dare to prefer Rocky Road to Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough. Yet that happens whenever anybody tries to evaluate a game further than answering "Is it fun?" and "Does it prettyful graphics"

I have no idea who or what you are arguing with. Maybe you should find those people who have problems discussing artistic merits of a game and argue with them rather than bringing that baggage into this discussion.

Errant Signal gets idiots in his comments (I've been watching his videos for years so I know that). Newsflash, everybody gets idiots in their comments. Totalbiscuit turned off his comments ages ago, and yet no one started a culture war over that. YouTube comments system is horrible, and Google doesn't seem to be interested in making it better. And that's not limited to gaming, just mention evolution or climate change in a video and you'll get an injection of crazy that you never thought was possible.

 

[Deadcyde]

Yeah, so long as there is an idea that generalizing anyone that games as a fat white misanthropic person whose hygiene is a second to watching animated breasts and hates women as he feels wrongly (oh the irony) persecuted by them and the rest of the mainstream at large.. ala a neckbeard.. There are going to be people defensive of their hobby of gaming.

Sadly this is generally used as confirmation of the generalization of misanthropy rather then treated as legitimate on a case by case basis. Though to be fair, deliberate trolls muddy the water in this regard. Nonetheless, "nerd shaming" and whatever else you care to call it, is still prevalent. In fact it's hit a massive resurgence with this gamergate nonsense.

I think it's pretty jerkish, but as we've seen, "neckbeards" give as good as they get.. (though they don't so much claim the victim despite what I'm saying here)

But is being a gamer dead? Course not, because gaming is separate from social constructs (as much a people would like to deny that) and people will continue to game no matter what, even if they must find a different way to achieve it.

Nonetheless, this is all very first world issue, like 3rd wave feminism. When compared to other issues, such as the fact there are still people killed based on race -in the west-. It does seem to make issues like whether or not you're actually a neckbeard or someone else gets 3 percent more money then you, seem a little disingenuous.

EDIT:

And I'm sorry, but the journalists writing those articles have miscalculated. They all operate in a market economy and not a hipster paradise where they are the people that get to decide what's cool this week. The market ultimately decides what is dead and what isn't.

I wish moderators remembered this too. They contribute to a site as much as "Journalists" (even if by omission) and despite the fact we're all human and subject to bias, trying to force that bias onto your consumer base isn't going to aid your site.

EDIT 1.5: No this isn't aimed at the escapist mods in particular, every mod could do to remember this.

EDIT 2: really? The Barbarians in Civ are allegory for uncontrolled elements, not "lesser" especially considering they can overwhelm supposedly "advanced" civilizations as well as earlier civilizations. That basically makes the idea of civilized vs uncivilized a point of relative perception that is massively interpretation based. Yet suddenly we have some guy holding up the banner saying "civilization is a game that's technologist due to how i perceive it after some heavy hand holding descriptors" and people aren't allowed to roll their eyes and just as he is indulging his right to opinion indulge theirs by telling him he's an idiot? Not only that, these "perceptual offenders" are being toted as horrible crimes or sexism and racism and then being touted as the only export of gaming.

That is some ridiculous cognitive dissonance. No wonder people who actually game just go back to actually gaming instead of taking part in this nonsense debate.

 

[Deadcyde]

I wonder would what would happen if "Gamers die"? Would people just stop using the term, except to refer to an ancient sub-culture of hobbyists that once existed?

Wouldn't that be a "good" thing? We, the people would exist, but the label would die. We'd just be called "people", and we'd have the same status of what you call people who read books or watch movies or listen to music or watch TV: Nothing. They aren't given labels, and their communities are doing just fine.

Should we even have a label? Should we want to have one?

If only, tell me, what did they call people who play D&D? Nerds. Geeks. and now? Gamers.

This is all some big jumped up ideal so people can basically lord over another by socially assassinating them. It's racism and sexism in our "politically correct" world.

And the simple fact is once one title dies, there will simply be another created so people can continue to diminish others to elevate themselves.

 

[Therumancer]

It's like this. There is a difference between a "gamer" and "someone who plays games". While technically those things mean the same thing, it's one of those cases where society and culture has given the term "gamer" on it's own a very specific meaning. A gamer is someone who is into games as a primary interest, a major focus for their life. It's sort of like how an "Athlete" is someone who plays a sport seriously and as a result their entire life from their social network, to what they do while not playing (like say working out constantly). Technically it can be said someone who plays an occasional game of football with their friends, or does softball on the weekends is also an "athlete" but overall when you talk about "athletes" as a defining trait you mean someone who is really, really, serious about it.

At the end of the day a gamer is someone who finds it reasonable to say put 20 hours into a game just to get started and figure out if it's going to be any good, and spend hundreds of hours potentially to get everything out of it, and might even spend an hour or two just to get one mission done. In comparison someone who is not a gamer might play occasionally and doesn't expect that kind of invested interest and effort. It's also possible to go from being a gamer to just someone who plays games, or vice versa. For example with some people you'll notice they get upset when their lack of commitment is pointed out and how they go off with "hey, I have a life, I can't put two hours into one mission in a Grand Theft Auto title anymore". Basically gamers are those who expect games worthy of the time and commitment and which can't be enjoyed by anyone else, while those who simply play games do it expecting to be entertained, receive immediate gratification, and be able to succeed at games and finish them with comparatively trivial effort. It can be argued that unless you happen to be with someone who is equally passionate about games and most of your relationship involves conversations across a room you have your computers set up with, you can't really be a gamer and have much of a social life, family, romance, etc.... because by definition that means all of your time is not being dedicated to your craft (so to speak).

The whole "basement dweller" thing comes from the fact that a lot of "gamers" are the result of a skipped generation. Basically people who never had the opportunities to succeed in any major way due to their parents generation not aging to the point of infirmity due to medical advances as quickly as other generations and thus being skipped. This means a lot of people from "Generation X" and "Generation Y" continued living at home especially if the parents could afford it and understood the problems, because there was literally nowhere else to go. With all the decent jobs in the same hands they were in to begin with held by people who didn't retire as the new generation was coming up, huge portions of Generation X and Y simply couldn't afford housing, and simply booting the kids out of the nest wasn't going to be the lesson needed to get them going and increasing numbers of people knew that. Of course when you wind up with increasingly old people living at home, there are fewer prospects for dating (yeah, your going to meet girls saying your living in Mom's basement) and of course raising a family. What low-end jobs these guys land however aren't sufficient to support the holders in their own homes, but DO mean with room and board taken care of, usually for at most a trivial investment, they have money to spare. This means expensive hobbies like gaming. This in some respects can cause a degree of resentment among those who "have lives" who actually make more money, but seemingly have less because they invest most of it in things these other guys can't, and don't have. You might say wind up with some 30 year old dude who doesn't date and yet can spend thousands of dollars annually and hundreds of hours a week playing video games. The guy with a life who might want to game tends to get resentful of that, especially when you consider that guy outspends him by a substantial margin and winds up being the primary audience games are created for as a result.

Right now the thing is that there are enough "casuals" in gaming via things like phones and the like that for once the gamers are not the biggest economic concern. Furthermore this is leaking back to things like computers and consoles. The comment about "gamers being dead" I think is more a matter of saying that in an environment where the gaming companies only cater to the biggest possible market, and that's casuals (which include FPS players) and produce very few games overall, the people making the decisions don't care anymore.

When it comes to politics, I don't think gamers have ever really been associated with being misogynistic. The stereotype is more "desperate and horny" and easily lead around by girls. The thing is though that with casuals outnumbering the serious gamers things like political correctness become more important since those are mainstream political concerns among those with jobs and such, and indeed being politically correct and generating controversy by doing so is a marketing tool that works well on a more mainstream, casual, audience. What's more by say claiming that guys who defend fantasy artwork and such are misogynists it gets attention, and since the gaming industry isn't catering to that group it's easy to slap them around for attention.

The odd thing is though that there are a surprising number of gamers, while outnumbered by casuals, the gamers still represent a LARGE minority group, and as a general rule such groups do not go quietly, what's more gamers still have money to spend disproportionate to those numbers... enough so where some of the clashes can be interesting, which is why you've seen such bitterness and the whole "Gamers are Dead" thing in #Gamersgate seems to largely have happened because some people were unhappy about how playing the PC card didn't just stop the opposition cold, gamers still have enough oomph in their own territory to not be easily silenced. What's more I suspect there is some concern among casuals that gaming will diversify more, believe it or not... and one of the first niche groups that will be catered to are the gamers since they have the numbers and the deepest pockets, and the content will likely be a matter of "what's entertaining" more than "what's PC" which will irritate those who have increasingly been bringing politics into the gaming arena.

That's my thoughts at any rate, I don't expect a lot to agree with me though.

It's sort of like the term "RPG" (Role-Playing Game) it has a very specific meaning, but as time goes on certain people have chosen to interpet it differently based on what they want it to mean, as opposed to what it actually means. But that's another entire discussion which isn't going to win me many popularity points.

 

[kael013]

I still can't believe this is a thing.

Reader: A person who reads a book, magazine, newspaper, etc.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reader

Filmgoer (or Moviegoer): A person who often goes to movies or who is at a particular movie.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/filmgoer

Gamer: A person who plays games and especially video or computer games.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamer

The definition tells us how gamers will die: when no one is interested in playing games.
The definition tells us when gamers will die: the same time as readers and filmgoers. [i/]Never[/i]. Sure, the label may die - I don't know anyone who calls themselves a moviegoer - but the subculture won't.

Side note: apparently videogames didn't create the label "gamer". It's been a word since around 1630. Just a lil' tidbit I found interesting.

 

[irishda]

"Gamers" as an identity should be dead. If your identity is based around an entertainment identity, it doesn't speak well for your life as a whole. When games are seen as a part of your identity, the any perceived attack on games becomes an attack on you. Any attempt to change games (for better or worse) is seen as attempt to change you. When you graft something to yourself, it becomes a part of you, and it's sad to see when that something is as trivial as video games.

I'm not against people playing video games. No one is (*ahem* people that made a joke that they're alive so therefore gamers can't be dead). What me and others are against is the hyper-consumerist class that buys every DLC then bitches about buying DLC. The class that believes those who play facebook games or shooters are somehow stupider than the people that had to get a special import for their JRPG because it wasn't getting an American release. The class that believes companies should be sued for false advertising because a game didn't live up to their expectations. The class that laments how stale video games have become only to cheer when another sequel to THEIR favorite IPs is released. That's what I want to see go away.

Something tells me the people that don't care about the term "gamer" going away aren't a part of that class.

 

[Redd the Sock]

I have and always will support the term "gamer" as an enthusiast at the least. I mean, we all cook, but no one calls themselves a chief unless it's their job, or won't even claim it as their hobby unless they did it with at least some passion over cooking your daily meal. I don't know why terms devoted to the enthusiasts, the experts, the devoted, the master, etc threaten so many people as to me, they give me something to shoot for. But I guess there are people you can't say no to because they get to have everything and heaven help you if you tell them no.

I mean, I get where the negative picture came from. It got attached to every other nerd stereotype as it was just another child's pass time we were supposed to outgrow but didn't. While we largely outgrew it, we got another problem or 5 years back. New people started coming in and wanting things changed. When there was resistance, these people needed a boogeyman. Something evil and twisted they could paint what was being done with to deflect that (just for a few) were being judgmental of the games others played and how they played them, felt entitled to what others saw as rewards to be earned, and demanding of input into creative content. They need the villain of the piece or they might have to face how often they're jumping around going "ME ME ME THINK ABOUT MEEEEEE!!!!" They call it exclusive, and to a level it was true, but not in the "no girls, coloreds or queers allowed" so much as a church not waving commandments or other doctrine for those that don't want to follow them.

Of course gamers aren't dead. The infamous articles wouldn't have been run if it were true. It was a combo emergency effort / wishful thinking that the lesson of the wii was no longer true: that the game industry wasn't as dependent on those of us spending hundreds if not thousands on gaming per year. A different time, different circumstances and you know, not all at once, the claim that the demographic was shifting might have had more validity. As is stood, it came off very much like people whose half truths and omissions were in danger of coming to light desperately tired mass stereotyping and vilification before the thought took hold.

World out great didn't it?

 

[mmiki]

But they aren't. Abuse is a shitty thing being done by shitty people. It has nothing to do with gaming or gaming culture. When a radical feminist abuses someone on twitter (and oh boy there's plenty of them), you don't see me decrying all feminism to be abusive. It's a dumb argument that ,if anything, got me questioning my life choice of reading Gamasutra.

If you read through the whole article you'd see the point the author is making, and that it has everything to do with gaming culture. This is the face of gaming, because gaming culture has yet to create anything more. The void is filled by the asshole behavior. The author doesn't blame all gamers as being abusive, she blames gaming culture for being so hollow that the only thing of significant attention it creates is assholes being assholes. Swatting, online harassment campaigns, and a high volume of toxicity online that most people respond to negatively whenever a developer or forum tries to curb it because how dare they take away the player's right to call somebody an asshole.

Thats not to say that gaming culture is entirely negative, as good things do happen all the time, including Child's Play, at the forefront. However, the culture is relatively stagnant despite its massive growth.

For one, the article does not make any kind of distinction. Gaming culture is hollow and toxic, gamers are maladjusted males. Second, that argument is completely off the rails. It's not 'hollow gaming culture' that is making people act like assholes, it's being anonymous. Give people power without any responsibility and that's how they'll act. I've seen it happen in all sorts of places from football fandoms to forums about music and especially religion and atheism. Here, religion and atheism deal with non-hollow and meaningful things, why do they get so many abusive people?

In any case, I don't agree that gaming culture is hollow, or that this is the face of it. This is the face that she has chosen to argue with to further her points and supposed moral superiority.

You completely ignored the whole part of the article that I quoted that was filled with insults directed at gaming and gaming subculture. Someone who says those kinds of things loses the right to tell other people that they shouldn't be douchebags. It's an article that laments the tone of the conversation while engaging in insults and the worst of the re-hashed stereotypes. And that doesn't strike you as the least bit hypocritical?

No, they were aimed at douchebags within the gaming subculture. Quite the distinction. The entire article is about how hobbyist gaming and gaming as a passion is bigger than ever before, yet the culture is still hollow consumerism doing its best to appeal to the demographics from fifteen years ago, and how some individuals in that demographic are kicking and screaming whenever that type of catering is questioned.

No, that's you filling in the blanks. I've cited the relevant part twice and it never makes a distinction between gamers and abusers.

I don't have the patience to get in an argument about "hollow consumerism", but it was inevitable that it was going to become consumerist as soon as it entered the mainstream. What else was it going to be? Has any form of entertainment that generates this much money went another way?

There is a bigger chance now than ever for doing something different. If you can find enough people to market it to, who cares if people are snarky about your Mountain screensaver disguised as a game? (I'm being facetious)

And I'm sorry, but the journalists writing those articles have miscalculated. They all operate in a market economy and not a hipster paradise where they are the people that get to decide what's cool this week. The market ultimately decides what is dead and what isn't.

Obviously not, if even Call of Duty is struggling to put up consistent numbers. In less than five years, Minecraft became the second-biggest game of all time, and if it continues at this rate, it will be #1.

Yes, but it was not because some gaming journalist proclaimed CoD dead and Minecraft alive. It's because there was a need for that kind of game.

And who owns the Minecraft brand now? You can be certain that the reason it went for so much money is that it gives access to a whole generation of consumers.

If you want to talk about something beyond graphics and gameplay and look for actual meaning, do it, but it's not a duty of your audience to be interested in what you want to talk about or what you personally find interesting.

Doesn't explain all the people who ***** and while about opinions they don't like. Nobody is forcing anybody to watch Anita Sarkeesian's videos, and if some backwards, infantile members of the community didn't have a hissy fit that somebody dared have a different opinion than them, how many of us would have ever watched her Tropes vs. Women in Videogames videos? How many of us would've even known about it if some people got in a fuss about somebody daring to have a different opinion?

How does bitching and whining intrude on your right to watch whatever you want?

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to say what you want without a reaction. As long as it's not threats, people are free to throw tantrums and suffer the consequences, like it happened with the Gamasutra article. Intel is not run by idiots.

It also doesn't explain the personal gripes about all the articles discussing things they don't care for. I'm an athiest and fall under the LGBTQ banner, but I don't go to online communities for religious homophobes and complain and say that it shouldn't exist. If you don't want to read the article, don't. Don't like Jim Sterling's opinion? Don't watch or read any of his stuff. Moviebob? Same thing. Same applies to every single internet personality out there. Unless a personality you don't like is causing a tangible harm to a person, you should just ignore, not stomp around that somebody dare likes their content.

I'm not a fan of toxicity either. Outside of heavy moderation I have not seen many effective ways of dealing with this, but this heavy moderation has often descended into censorship. Reddit is the most infamous for this, with 99% of the drama that happens there being the result of moderators going completely off the rails.

But I digress.

Don't see the part where the writer calls all people who play games "socially inept lonely kids who are consumerist zombies".

Lets have it one more time because you missed it the first time around:

I didn't miss it, it just didn't say what you claimed it did. If you're identifying yourself as a consumerist zombie, thats your problem because you don't value gaming as anything more than being brainless toys. If you identify as a jerk resisting having to share a medium with somebody else, then thats your problem because, well, you're likely a jerk that doesn't want anybody to interact with games differently than you do and/or anybody who isn't like you to interact with them. And if you aren't either of those things, but are still upset by it, then you should realize that the article isn't talking about you.

You are again reading things that aren't there. And even if I am enjoying brainless toys, that's none of your business. That's you having a problem with how I interact with my games. So practice what you preach and leave my brainless toys alone.

Personally I don't get much enjoyment out of brainless toys but I'm kinda getting sick of the hypocrisy.

I have no idea who or what you are arguing with. Maybe you should find those people who have problems discussing artistic merits of a game and argue with them rather than bringing that baggage into this discussion.

I'm not dragging that baggage in, thats who the article is talking about.

The article is a stream of abuse directed at gamers and gaming culture, followed by author's lamentations that said culture out there enjoys things she doesn't. It's followed by a clear division of us vs. them, the evil hollow gamers that enjoy empty consumerism, vs. us, the new wave, Gamers 2.0, that enjoy inclusive games (I mean seriously, Leigh Alexander and inclusive in the same sentence?), setting herself up as a curator in this brave new world of gaming she was going to lead us off to, if it wasn't for those meddling kids.

Here's a hint: gaming has always been inclusive. It always had its share of idiots and misogynists too, but it was way more inclusive than other hobbies like sports were. We were all anonymous behind the screen and it never mattered what you were, girl, boy, LGBT, what your skin color or culture was. It wasn't often depicted that way in mainstream gaming but it has gotten better over the years and it especially got better since the barrier to entry into making games was lowered.

I don't believe her one minute when she says she's about being "inclusive". You only need to do a little digging to see why, if you even care. It has always been about pushing a political agenda. Games are no longer about fun. They should be judged on whether they have the right message rather than their merits. I can't imagine a worse gaming hell than one curated by people with these kinds of views.

Errant Signal gets idiots in his comments (I've been watching his videos for years so I know that). Newsflash, everybody gets idiots in their comments. Totalbiscuit turned off his comments ages ago, and yet no one started a culture war over that. YouTube comments system is horrible, and Google doesn't seem to be interested in making it better. And that's not limited to gaming, just mention evolution or climate change in a video and you'll get an injection of crazy that you never thought was possible.

I'm not talking about Youtube comments, I'm talking about everywhere within gaming culture. This was posted, completely unironically, on these forums earlier today.

"On the proper topic, relevant gamer girls are probably like Vi/v/ian James and just want to play games without outside politics."

And? Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if you think they are wrong.

I don't pretend to know what gamer women want, but personally I've had too much politics in my gaming lately.

Comments like these are everywhere. Its not "just Youtube" (not that its a viable counter in the first place), it exists on critiques, on opinion articles, in user-created threads specifically meant to discuss something in-depth. Anita Sarkeesian is relevant only because of people who feel, and act, this way - she's living proof of the phenomena. There are people who want to keep gaming culture exclusively for them. I don't get upset when somebody values a game for any reason. I don't see much of value in the GTA franchise. I don't enjoy racing or fighting games. I don't piss on other people's parade. Its really not that hard to do, especially given that people who do have to go out of the way to do so usually. Yet people do it because they can't stand the thought of somebody else liking the things that they don't like, or disliking something that they like.

So your problem is that people get annoyed when you like something they don't and vice versa? I think that attitude is juvenile but you know...Earlier you made an argument "if you don't like it, don't watch/read it".

 

[JohnFei]

The reports of Gamers' death are greatly exaggerated.

snip

Good luck discussing with Gamers who you proclaim to be dead.