Why Leigh's article doesn't say what you think it does.
Article here: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php
"‘Game culture’ as we know it is kind of embarrassing" - reference to how game culture is currently viewed
From there down to "This is what the rest of the world" is may look like she's saying that's all game culture is, right? But surely this next paragraph imples otherwise:
"This is what the rest of the world knows about your industry -- this, and headlines about billion-dollar war simulators or those junkies with the touchscreen candies. That’s it. You should absolutely be better than this."
This suggests that this is what non-game people know about the industry - as in, implying she sees there's more to it than that.
"let’s say it’s a vocal minority that’s not representative of most people" - again, acknowledgement of not all gamers
This next paragraph comes up a lot too:
"Game websites with huge community hubs whose fans are often associated with blunt Twitter hate mobs sort of shrug, they say things like ‘we delete the really bad stuff, what else can we do’ and ‘those people don’t represent our community’ -- but actually, those people do represent your community. That’s what your community is known for, whether you like it or not."
Where does this imply that everyone is like that? That's saying those bad people represent the community. That implies there are other people that aren't like that being misrepresented.
Another important pargraph:
"Suddenly a generation of lonely basement kids had marketers whispering in their ears that they were the most important commercial demographic of all time."
^ Notice how this is a criticism of the marketing at game fans, not the game fans themselves. The next paragraph is continuing that. It's saying those ideas are those coming from marketing.
"We still think angry young men are the primary demographic for commercial video games -- yet average software revenues from the commercial space have contracted massively year on year, with only a few sterling brands enjoying predictable success. "
^ This is pointing out that marketers, lots of society, still think of gamers only as angry young men. But it's also suggest that's WRONG.
"There are new audiences and new creators alike there. Traditional “gaming” is sloughing off, culturally and economically, like the carapace of a bug."
^ As in, the gaming culture as marketed to young teen boys is no longer the main 'gaming culture'
"“Gamer” isn’t just a dated demographic label that most people increasingly prefer not to use. Gamers are over. That’s why they’re so mad. These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers -- they are not my audience. They don’t have to be yours."
^ Looking at this in the context of the full article, and emphasising especially the quotation marks, it should be clear the reference is to the image of 'gamers' as traditionally viewed by marketing/society, not 'people who like games'.