are all people that play video games for hours each day losers?

[gigapet]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: gigapet
msot stamp collectors dont spend 20 hours a week on there hobbie!!!

Earlier in this thread you said:

Originally posted by: gigapet
you dont fit the profile for who I am talking about. 10 hours a week / 7 days = < 2 hours a day = not the person this poll is directed towards.

kthxbye

So according to you, if someone spends < 2 hours/day on "there hobbie", then they're not a loser. But if they spend < 3 hours/day (2.85 hours/day or 20 hours a week to be exact) they're a "loser".

Hence, someone could spend 2.71 hours/day on a hobby a week (19 hours), but once they hit 2.85, they officially reach Gigapet "loser" status.

Rich.

wow you are being way to literal and scientific over something that has no scientific measurment. First of all if you are doing a hobbie 20 hours a week or more....you are a full on enthusiast and you should probably be making some money off it at that point making it somewhat of a partime job.

games and tv just dont give you kind of benefit....like the more you watch or play the less valuable you are. Where as if i was to collect stamps for 20 hours a week. Chances are by the ned of the year my collection might actually be worth money to me. If I was to build model plains everyday for 2+ hours .....I would have enough knowledge about them to perhaps design my own kits and sell them or ebay the models i put together....etc....


there is just no return on video games or tv. Possibly with exception of watching discover or TLC only in hopes one day you can win 49 consecutive jeopardy compeitions.

is this starting to make sense yet?

 

[bandana163]

Not necessarily.

IMO, people who play any game for 10-12+ hours every day (MMORPGs, Starcraft, Diablo, CS...) are very close to my definition of loser (or they're just rich guys with nothing to care about), but people who play games for a few hours instead of watching worthless trash on TV for hours each day (reality shows, soap operas...) or doing something equally meaningless are not. It depends on the games they play as well. There is a big difference between Torment or Baldur's Gate and Super Barbie Vs. Pokemon Turbo Edition 3.

It's all right to do whatever you feel like doing, as long as it makes you happy and doesn't negatively affect anyone else. The bottom line is: I think it doesn't really matter how you pass time, it's just a matter of preference what you do, but playing games so much that it affects your life and makes you treat reality secondary to virtual reality is definitely wrong.

 

[Phoenix15]

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: gigapet
msot stamp collectors dont spend 20 hours a week on there hobbie!!!

Earlier in this thread you said:

Originally posted by: gigapet
you dont fit the profile for who I am talking about. 10 hours a week / 7 days = < 2 hours a day = not the person this poll is directed towards.

kthxbye

So according to you, if someone spends < 2 hours/day on "there hobbie", then they're not a loser. But if they spend < 3 hours/day (2.85 hours/day or 20 hours a week to be exact) they're a "loser".

Hence, someone could spend 2.71 hours/day on a hobby a week (19 hours), but once they hit 2.85, they officially reach Gigapet "loser" status.

Rich.

wow you are being way to literal and scientific over something that has no scientific measurment. First of all if you are doing a hobbie 20 hours a week or more....you are a full on enthusiast and you should probably be making some money off it at that point making it somewhat of a partime job.

games and tv just dont give you kind of benefit....like the more you watch or play the less valuable you are. Where as if i was to collect stamps for 20 hours a week. Chances are by the ned of the year my collection might actually be worth money to me. If I was to build model plains everyday for 2+ hours .....I would have enough knowledge about them to perhaps design my own kits and sell them or ebay the models i put together....etc....


there is just no return on video games or tv. Possibly with exception of watching discover or TLC only in hopes one day you can win 49 consecutive jeopardy compeitions.

is this starting to make sense yet?

There are thousands of things you can do that hav eno literal "payback" If me and my wife spend a day at the beach, there is no real payback. It is surely worthy and time well spent though. I remember several rainy Saturday's that we've sat around watching a movie or tv. We would pause the tv and talk about what was happening on the show, or about what the plot may turn out to be. I wouldn't trade all the money in the world for those times.

To each his own, man. Stop trying to pigeon hole everyone on the planet.

 

[Phoenix15]

Originally posted by: Vaerilis
Not necessarily.

Super Barbie Vs. Pokemon Turbo Edition 3.

HOLY SHYT!!!!

I didn't know that wsa out yet!!11

/runs to EB

 

[gigapet]

Originally posted by: Phoenix15

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: gigapet
msot stamp collectors dont spend 20 hours a week on there hobbie!!!

Earlier in this thread you said:

Originally posted by: gigapet
you dont fit the profile for who I am talking about. 10 hours a week / 7 days = < 2 hours a day = not the person this poll is directed towards.

kthxbye

So according to you, if someone spends < 2 hours/day on "there hobbie", then they're not a loser. But if they spend < 3 hours/day (2.85 hours/day or 20 hours a week to be exact) they're a "loser".

Hence, someone could spend 2.71 hours/day on a hobby a week (19 hours), but once they hit 2.85, they officially reach Gigapet "loser" status.

Rich.

wow you are being way to literal and scientific over something that has no scientific measurment. First of all if you are doing a hobbie 20 hours a week or more....you are a full on enthusiast and you should probably be making some money off it at that point making it somewhat of a partime job.

games and tv just dont give you kind of benefit....like the more you watch or play the less valuable you are. Where as if i was to collect stamps for 20 hours a week. Chances are by the ned of the year my collection might actually be worth money to me. If I was to build model plains everyday for 2+ hours .....I would have enough knowledge about them to perhaps design my own kits and sell them or ebay the models i put together....etc....


there is just no return on video games or tv. Possibly with exception of watching discover or TLC only in hopes one day you can win 49 consecutive jeopardy compeitions.

is this starting to make sense yet?

There are thousands of things you can do that hav eno literal "payback" If me and my wife spend a day at the beach, there is no real payback. It is surely worthy and time well spent though. I remember several rainy Saturday's that we've sat around watching a movie or tv. We would pause the tv and talk about what was happening on the show, or about what the plot may turn out to be. I wouldn't trade all the money in the world for those times.

To each his own, man. Stop trying to pigeon hole everyone on the planet.

no kidding man i enjoy not leaving bed for the entire day every now and again just like the next. atgain your not following what im talking about here so whatever.

 

[ggnl]

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: ggnl

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: Jeraden
I know people who claim they never play video games, never watch tv, etc. I always wonder what exactly they do with all their free time. Because personally, I spend the majority of mine watching tv and playing video games. Without that, I'd be bored senseless most of the time. When you think about it, any recreational activity is a "waste of time" for the most part. We all can't be making valuable contributions to society every waking moment.

I choose to stay at home and watch tv/movies and play games. Others use that free time to go to bars/clubs. Others are obsessed with sports. Others are always working out/exercising. 5 years from now, can any of them look back and say yeah, that was a productive way to spend that time of my life? Probably not, but if you enjoy it while you are doing it, thats all that really matters.

most hobbies other than gaming and watching tv enrich you as a person in some way.

Please elaborate. Besides the health benefits you get from physical activities, it seems like most hobbies are just as meaningless as gaming.

How about you list some of your hobbies and how they enrich you?

your health is certainly not meaningless.

I didn't say it was. Does this mean a hobby must improve your health to be meaningful? I devote more time than most people to staying in shape (I cycle 5 days a week), but it still only fills up a fraction of the roughly 50 hours of free time I have every week.

You still haven't told us what it is you do that makes you so much better than all the video game playing losers out there.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: gigapet
msot stamp collectors dont spend 20 hours a week on there hobbie!!!

Earlier in this thread you said:

Originally posted by: gigapet
you dont fit the profile for who I am talking about. 10 hours a week / 7 days = < 2 hours a day = not the person this poll is directed towards.

kthxbye

So according to you, if someone spends < 2 hours/day on "there hobbie", then they're not a loser. But if they spend < 3 hours/day (2.85 hours/day or 20 hours a week to be exact) they're a "loser".

Hence, someone could spend 2.71 hours/day on a hobby a week (19 hours), but once they hit 2.85, they officially reach Gigapet "loser" status.

Rich.

wow you are being way to literal and scientific over something that has no scientific measurment. First of all if you are doing a hobbie 20 hours a week or more....you are a full on enthusiast and you should probably be making some money off it at that point making it somewhat of a partime job.

games and tv just dont give you kind of benefit....like the more you watch or play the less valuable you are. Where as if i was to collect stamps for 20 hours a week. Chances are by the ned of the year my collection might actually be worth money to me. If I was to build model plains everyday for 2+ hours .....I would have enough knowledge about them to perhaps design my own kits and sell them or ebay the models i put together....etc....


there is just no return on video games or tv. Possibly with exception of watching discover or TLC only in hopes one day you can win 49 consecutive jeopardy compeitions.

is this starting to make sense yet?

My reference is to the fact that you said someone is a loser if they partake in a hobby for 20 or more hours a week. Yet, someone who partakes in a hobby (including video games) for 10 hours is not a loser. This logic is out of your own mouth.

Why should someone get paid to do something for a hobby that requires 20 hours a week? Should I get paid for going to karate class for 2.5 hours a day? What monetary return do I get out of karate other than the fact that I can beat people down and have fun doing it? I have no desire to teach it and earn money, I do it for fun.

Let's explore the definition of hobby:
hob·by1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hb)
n. pl. hob·bies
An activity or interest pursued outside one's regular occupation and engaged in primarily for pleasure.

Pleasure. Ask someone to define pleasure. Only elitists think their pleasure > other people's pleasure and call them losers for it.

 

[gigapet]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: gigapet
msot stamp collectors dont spend 20 hours a week on there hobbie!!!

Earlier in this thread you said:

Originally posted by: gigapet
you dont fit the profile for who I am talking about. 10 hours a week / 7 days = < 2 hours a day = not the person this poll is directed towards.

kthxbye

So according to you, if someone spends < 2 hours/day on "there hobbie", then they're not a loser. But if they spend < 3 hours/day (2.85 hours/day or 20 hours a week to be exact) they're a "loser".

Hence, someone could spend 2.71 hours/day on a hobby a week (19 hours), but once they hit 2.85, they officially reach Gigapet "loser" status.

Rich.

wow you are being way to literal and scientific over something that has no scientific measurment. First of all if you are doing a hobbie 20 hours a week or more....you are a full on enthusiast and you should probably be making some money off it at that point making it somewhat of a partime job.

games and tv just dont give you kind of benefit....like the more you watch or play the less valuable you are. Where as if i was to collect stamps for 20 hours a week. Chances are by the ned of the year my collection might actually be worth money to me. If I was to build model plains everyday for 2+ hours .....I would have enough knowledge about them to perhaps design my own kits and sell them or ebay the models i put together....etc....


there is just no return on video games or tv. Possibly with exception of watching discover or TLC only in hopes one day you can win 49 consecutive jeopardy compeitions.

is this starting to make sense yet?

My reference is to the fact that you said someone is a loser if they partake in a hobby for 20 or more hours a week. Yet, someone who partakes in a hobby (including video games) for 10 hours is not a loser. This logic is out of your own mouth.

Why should someone get paid to do something for a hobby that requires 20 hours a week? Should I get paid for going to karate class for 2.5 hours a day? What monetary return do I get out of karate other than the fact that I can beat people down and have fun doing it? I have no desire to teach it and earn money, I do it for fun.

Let's explore the definition of hobby:
hob·by1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hb)
n. pl. hob·bies
An activity or interest pursued outside one's regular occupation and engaged in primarily for pleasure.

Pleasure. Ask someone to define pleasure. Only elitists think their pleasure > other people's pleasure and call them losers for it.

never said i wasnt elitist.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Nothing is a waste of time really, if you love doing it and enjoy it.

 

[gigapet]

Originally posted by: ggnl

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: ggnl

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: Jeraden
I know people who claim they never play video games, never watch tv, etc. I always wonder what exactly they do with all their free time. Because personally, I spend the majority of mine watching tv and playing video games. Without that, I'd be bored senseless most of the time. When you think about it, any recreational activity is a "waste of time" for the most part. We all can't be making valuable contributions to society every waking moment.

I choose to stay at home and watch tv/movies and play games. Others use that free time to go to bars/clubs. Others are obsessed with sports. Others are always working out/exercising. 5 years from now, can any of them look back and say yeah, that was a productive way to spend that time of my life? Probably not, but if you enjoy it while you are doing it, thats all that really matters.

most hobbies other than gaming and watching tv enrich you as a person in some way.

Please elaborate. Besides the health benefits you get from physical activities, it seems like most hobbies are just as meaningless as gaming.

How about you list some of your hobbies and how they enrich you?

your health is certainly not meaningless.

I didn't say it was. Does this mean a hobby must improve your health to be meaningful? I devote more time than most people to staying in shape (I cycle 5 days a week), but it still only fills up a fraction of the roughly 50 hours of free time I have every week.

You still haven't told us what it is you do that makes you so much better than all the video game playing losers out there.

this thread isnt for me to justify to you guys why im better as if anything i possibly said you'd believe or take seriously.

This thread started off with an opinion based on my life experiences taht those people that i encountered that were hardcore gamers had nothing of value to contribute to my life so therefore they are losers in my mind. that is all sorry if its not what you think but you had an option to vote. I wasnt trying to convince anyone of their opinion in this thread but everyone wants to change mine.

 

[gigapet]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: gigapet
msot stamp collectors dont spend 20 hours a week on there hobbie!!!

Earlier in this thread you said:

Originally posted by: gigapet
you dont fit the profile for who I am talking about. 10 hours a week / 7 days = < 2 hours a day = not the person this poll is directed towards.

kthxbye

So according to you, if someone spends < 2 hours/day on "there hobbie", then they're not a loser. But if they spend < 3 hours/day (2.85 hours/day or 20 hours a week to be exact) they're a "loser".

Hence, someone could spend 2.71 hours/day on a hobby a week (19 hours), but once they hit 2.85, they officially reach Gigapet "loser" status.

Rich.

wow you are being way to literal and scientific over something that has no scientific measurment. First of all if you are doing a hobbie 20 hours a week or more....you are a full on enthusiast and you should probably be making some money off it at that point making it somewhat of a partime job.

games and tv just dont give you kind of benefit....like the more you watch or play the less valuable you are. Where as if i was to collect stamps for 20 hours a week. Chances are by the ned of the year my collection might actually be worth money to me. If I was to build model plains everyday for 2+ hours .....I would have enough knowledge about them to perhaps design my own kits and sell them or ebay the models i put together....etc....


there is just no return on video games or tv. Possibly with exception of watching discover or TLC only in hopes one day you can win 49 consecutive jeopardy compeitions.

is this starting to make sense yet?

My reference is to the fact that you said someone is a loser if they partake in a hobby for 20 or more hours a week. Yet, someone who partakes in a hobby (including video games) for 10 hours is not a loser. This logic is out of your own mouth.

Why should someone get paid to do something for a hobby that requires 20 hours a week? Should I get paid for going to karate class for 2.5 hours a day? What monetary return do I get out of karate other than the fact that I can beat people down and have fun doing it? I have no desire to teach it and earn money, I do it for fun.

Let's explore the definition of hobby:
hob·by1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hb)
n. pl. hob·bies
An activity or interest pursued outside one's regular occupation and engaged in primarily for pleasure.

Pleasure. Ask someone to define pleasure. Only elitists think their pleasure > other people's pleasure and call them losers for it.

very few people put in that kind of time to anything without any financial benefit.

 

[PingSpike]

Sounds like Websters should hire gigapet as a consultant, since they've obviously got the definition wrong on at least two words: loser and hobby. And in the case of hobby they didn't even spell it correctly!

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

No, I'm a loser that goes on AT for hours each day.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: purbeast0
umm i work fulltime, have a serious GF, fvck her about 5 times a week, workout 4 times a week, and play video games probably 10 hours a week, and no one I know considers me a loser ...

so i'm going to have to say NO.

LOL, do you consider yourself a typical Kiddie Gamer? I sure don't. In fact if those who play for hours at the time had access to a girl and the inclination to workout and socialize they probably wouldn't be playing these games for hours on end. Even as inane as ATOT is at least those of us who post here are at least interacting with others.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

No more so than someone who spends all day posting on a forum.

/thread

 

[oculus]

Originally posted by: gigapet
well ifyou keep people in your life that dont benefit you in some way you are a damn fool.

Though I disagree, it doesn't change the fact that just because they don't benefit you, it doesn't mean they are a loser.

 

[Aquila76]

I don't think gamer = loser.
Maybe you need to modify your poll for amount of time gaming per day that makes you a loser.Example:
Dude who played for 50 hours straight and died = loser.
Gamers who play every waking moment they have free maybe= loser
Those of us who game for a couple hours a night to unwind aftewr working !=loser.

 

[thomsbrain]

i can't play a video game for more than 15 minutes without getting bored, no matter what game it is.

 

[meltdown75]

the real issue here is what you do with your time on the computer. out of all the computer users here, we can probably find a nice handful of people whose sole or nearly sole spare time activity of choice involves being on the computer (maybe another handful of full-blown computer addicts ). if you game constantly, you are obviously wasting time compared to someone who is doing, say, web development or web enterprising. however, i don't think anyone can say that gamers can be of the 1337 variety. anyone who's played online games or been in a clan knows that hardcore gamer != loser. similarly, hardcore forum addicts or what-have-you aren't necessarily losers either. anyhoo... you just can't slap a label on someone for one activity, even if it takes up their whole freaking lives. we all have our own paths to take i guess.

again i say video games ftw

 

[dds14u]

You can convince them China is a better place.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=38&threadid=1672467&enterthread=y

 

[JASANITY]

Gigapet is obviously the loser. Look how many posts he has! haha. Loser. Just tellin' it as it is.

 

[forrestroche]

How MANY hours?

 

[loic2003]

I think gigapet is bored with his dead-end job and needs to vent so he created a topic that would offend many thus giving him something to do.

Anyhoo... looks like we're all having trouble defining 'loser'. Everyone has different definitions: some will only consider themselves winners if they're the best of their repective fields, others will consider being happy with a much simpler life and consider this a decent goal and thus a winner.

Although a puerile comment, it has stimulated fairly interesting debate.

I wouldn't consider myself a loser, although I like to play computer games for maybe an hour or two in the evening to relax so according to Gigapet's theory I must be wrong. Gigapet stated that he makes the lives of people around him better, therefore he can't be a loser. I put it to him that I play video games regularly, but I also help out doing voluntary community work with youngsters and put a lot of time into it.

Maybe what's he trying to talk about with his brochure-level debating skills is more about balance than videogames. If you do anything for too long per day, it becomes counter-productive to your life (if you're watching TV for endless hours or collecting crap/building scale model boats... whatever). If you can maintain a healthy balance - like I do - of gaming, work, community/charity work, going out, cycling, motorcycling and exercise (for example) then you have a decent setup for life. Gigapet's original statement appears myopic to me and displays a certain level of ignorance, not to mention the arogance of posting it in a public forum.

I contend that I do infact rule.

 

[skace]

The difference between me and these other posters, is I don't give a sh!t if gigapet thinks I'm a loser . It really doesn't matter, now does it?

 

[dug777]

nope. gigapet is teh loser for caring so much