I can't read this without thinking of The People's Front of Judea:
I don't think this whole situation for many people is so much about journalistic integrity and the societal impact video games have on human behaviour any more, but about identity. When we're asked who we are, we'll usually respond along the lines of "I am a multifaceted person whose combination of moral beliefs, interests and personal experiences have shaped a unique view on my perception of the world". To make a statement like this places you under a degree of vulnerability, as you recognise you're alone in your viewpoints and you solely are responsible for defending them. Given that being social is fundamental to our survival, we'll typically form social bonds with those who agree with us or share the same interests, giving us a sense of validation and a sense of protection if we're placed under attack. This is why when we're young we tend to become involved in social groups which can be categorised under such a broad term, as when you're young you have very little life experience thus can only identify with people who share similar interests or undergo similar experiences. When you get older the amount of life experiences you have allow you to identify with a wider amount of people more easily, so the need to identify yourself with a broad term diminishes as you can still identify with people who you might not always agree with.
For a variety of reasons, not everybody gets to a point where they feel confident enough to identify as a unique, complex person whose individual thoughts and feelings should be validated with reasoned justification (I should point out that I wouldn't blame anyone for getting to this point, I know personally how this feels like and how difficult it can be to get out of this mindset). This usually results in an existential crisis, which you can handle by either isolating yourself, distracting yourself, distancing yourself by examining your existence aesthetically or anchoring yourself into a singular identity. I think a lot of the commentary (including Phil Fish and Zoe Quinn) has come from those who have chosen the latter option, where their lives are defined by video games as opposed to being a hobby that is one small aspect of a wider person. The terms gamer, indie developer, gaming journalist etc. have never been used in a singular descriptive context; the phrases themselves hold ideological connotations that describes a multitude of personality traits (so when Zoe Quinn tells you that she's an indie developer, she not just saying she makes games. She's telling you she belongs to an exclusive social circle with a very specific definition of social, political and philosophical beliefs that to be a part of, you must subscribe to). If you have nothing else in your life other than a single phrased identity, which if you think about objectively is actually quite demeaning, you're going to be very defensive about it.
The problem is now that for many people who identify solely as single phrases, this whole situation has bought their identity into disrepute. These terms for many people no longer mean "an interest in video games", it signals to people your view on this situation, which in turn signals a general impression of your social, political and philosophical views as well. It's a common occurrence in extremist politics, where a group of people who have nothing but an extremist ideology will split over a small issue, spending all their time fighting against each other rather than debating the original conflict of interest. In the same way these people which to use singular terms so people can make assumptions of them, they also make assumptions about others who use another term. In the context of the quoted article, creating a new term to argue the points identified is useless, as all that will happen is a stream of ad hominem attacks of opposing sides calling each other "gamer" and "player". It only serves benefit to those wishing to use video games as a definition of identity, not those who wish to discuss their hobby in depth.
Unfortunately, there's more money in division and sensationalism than in rationality and sensible discussion. If such a division of terms becomes popular in the mainstream, the cynic in me believes its sole usage will be used by gaming news outlets to develop a core, loyal readership that uses their news for confirmation bias. Of course that happens already and is the reason why discussion about this issue has been so vitriolic. I just hope that out of this whole issue, at least some people have become more understanding and open minded to opposing sides of debate. Whereas when I first read about this I instantly took sides, I'm pleased this issue has allowed me to think more critically and view opposing arguments as constructive rather than hyperbolic.
