“Gamer” means person who plays any videogame in the context of “gamer” vs “non-gamer”. If you’re talking “gamer” vs “casual” then you’re talking about two subsets within the broader “gamer” category. And the definitions are arguable and fluid but they do exist and they aren’t necessarily pejorative. There's no need to…

I’m okay with a single kid doing. Once it gets to like seven kids, then shit’s gotten out of hand!

I think the problem here is that you have a problem with people doing shit that makes them enjoy video games better. Different strokes for different folks. Nobody’s changing your vidoegames. Lighten up, chauncy.

I think if you get annoyed at the term “non-binary” you are by default, a prick. Try not giving a shit. It’s really good strategy for prickishness. And stop sighing. That’s a major symptom. Stifle your sighs, bro.

But you can change the game the creators made so it’s not a boy. It’s not the end of the story. Don’t you see? You can change things. Did you read the article?

What did you see through the eyes of Link?

The same, huh? Can you think of any ways in which its different from taking a paint brush and walking up to mona lisa and adding a mustache and a brow piercing?

Well, I retract my benefit of the doubt, then. Your theory is made up and dramatical. We live in the Age of $1500 Hoverboards. VR will be fine.

This “go big or go home” theory of yours seems made up and dramatical. So what if only early adopters and rich people buy it first gen? Poor people want stuff that rich people have. Devs will be attracted to a platform with an audience of rich enthusiasts. Also, it’s, y’know, something they’ve been dreaming about…

Nobody needs to make VR mainstream in 2016. They can do that when the tech is ready and cheap enough. This year VR is a niche luxury good like a 1970s VCR or a TV in the 1940. Everyone knows it. Nobody is like “oh shit, we priced it too high and now it won’t be mainstream!” Next versions will be cheaper and better. If…