I'd just like to add that I think any actual hardcore gamer would be accepting of change since major change is part of gaming.  Major changes were seen in the third generation when the d-pad crushed the old cumbersome digital joysticks--battery saved game files, scrolling screens, and a wealth of other things.  Major change came in the 5th generation when disk-based formats, 3-D, and analog control came into being.  Major change comes with the Wii and DS reinventing the wheel (something I felt needed to happen in this generation anyway).  Hardcore gamers, in my view, just love games and the industry and everything about gaming.  We're the ones that consider this slightly more than "just a hobby." 

If we wanted to get into some specific labelling quagmire, we could say that those hardcore-like gamers that are resistant to change are "fanatics."  But then, this might be less about personality type than what type of gamer you are. 

As a Metalhead, I have an elitist quality about me in that there are some people I just plain don't want listening to the music I listen to.  It's basically that I don't want the music I love associated with certain people.  That's an elitist quality.  In my music taste, I am also not against change.  I think any kind of experimentation outside of one's normal bounds is something that can be worthwhile.*  In music, I think experimentation is better done in the guise of a side-project, but acceptable all the same.  For instance, Megadeth's Risk album probably would've been better off done in a side-project so as to retain the image of the band.  The way Dave Mustaine (the head honcho of Megadeth for those that don't know) did the MD.45 side project that was essentially Southern-Rock tinged Metal--quite a bit different from the Thrash/Heavy Metal stylings of Megadeth regular.

Does it bother me that some people playing games on my chosen system are so vastly different from me?  Does it bother me that there are old geezers like my Mom playing Wii, a system I really freakin' love?  Not really.  It'd be nice if she had better taste in software (Carnival Games! Come on, Mah!), but this is part of Nintendo's plan.  They've always tried to bring gaming to everyone, and with the Wii and DS, they finally found out how to do it.  How to make gaming more accessible for noobs while simultaneously reinventing it for gamers. 

I still believe there are at least a few different generalizations of gamers:

The Casuals/Blue Ocean crowd:  These are the noobs.  Know next to nothing about the industry.  First timers buying into for a variety of reasons.  Perhaps for HD movies, perhaps for the fun-looking new and coincidentially affordable system.
The Pop Gamers:  Mostly a passing hobby, industry knowledge generally minimal, tends to stick to only the most popular games.  Tend not to play the games again once the thrill has passed.  Trade in a lot.  Stick to few genres.  New generations mean "out with the old."
The Hardcore:  The people who play wide varieties of genres, seek niche titles, classic genres, know and understand the industry and are likely to be collectors.  Trade in games either not at all, or on very limited basis.  New generations bring excitement, and more stuff to add to that ever-growing collection.
The Elitists/Fanboys:  (Don't have this definition fully ironed out.)

 Clearly, I don't view "Hardcore Gamer" using the word "hardcore" in it's dictionary-sense.  I think "Hardcore Gamer" is it's own term seperate from the stand-alone word "hardcore."  I mean, Hardcore music doesn't quite use the word according to it's dictionary meaning. 

Shit, sorry, I didn't mean this response to end up being this long.

EDIT:

*By "experimentation," I mean, stepping outside one's comfort zone to try something new.  That's why I'm all for them trying the fighter with Castlevania: Judgement.  They've made nearly a dozen Metroid-like Castlevanias.  I think it's time to try something else.  Sure, it might fail, but at least they're trying.  By "experimentation," I don't mean "doing lots of drugs to hasten the ruination of one's life."  That's just stupid.  Another example is like the one I used as an example for Megadeth & Dave Mustaine.  Another good example is a filmmaker who usually makes stern dramas or thrillers and switching up to do a comedy or something once.  Take Stanley Kubrick.  His stuff is usually grim, dark, moody stuff.  But he did a black comedy (Dr. Strangelove), and by god, that movie is fucking awesome.

You can't say I'm this, this and this, and I call myself that, therefore that = this, this, and this.  Well, you can, but you're going to be speaking an entirely different language than everyone else.  I'm not saying there's no such thing as what you are.  You are a gaming enthusiast:

1. One who is filled with enthusiasm; one who is ardently absorbed in an interest or pursuit: a baseball enthusiast.

That is much closer to the way you describe yourself than either definition of hardcore.  I'm sorry, but you can't arbitrarily change the meaning of words.  Unless everyone or a great majority adopts your definition, your personal definition means nothing.

You're defining the category by the group when it should be the other way around.  What you're doing is saying the defintion of the word "hardcore" doesn't go along with the group of people I think of as hardcore.  Therefore, I'm going to change the word's meaning to fit what I want it to.  Obviously, that doesn't work.  Everyone can come up with their own meaning and then communication becomes much more difficult.  For the same reason that the girl can't redefine kitty as lion and be understood, you can't do the same with hardcore.

I was a hard core gamer between the ages of 12 to 16. Then I got hardcore into porn for about 2 years. After that was drugs and booze, then I found jesus and now I'm hardcore into the bible, look for me on the corner downtown this weekend preaching the good book and trying to save souls.

This is precisely what I'm getting at. A dictionary cannot possibly cover all of the different meanings of love in one book, they'd have over 6 billion entries. Is the generalized entry that attempts to cover them all any more correct than any individuals entry? No, of course not.

@Tarheel

That being said, to answer some of your questions Tarheel, of course we can communicate despite having personal meanings for all concepts and words. In society we do have certain words that are only accepted to have one meaning, they are referred to as having precising definitions and act to clear up any vagueness. Other words may have stipulated definitions and can neither be right or wrong and are open for challenge, it depends on the user or place. An adult is different across many places in the world. Some base it on age, some on accomplishments, some on the body. Communications are very difficult across the world for this very reason.

People across the world with different definitions for adult are not suddenly going to conform to what Webster says, so yes my personal definition, as does many others, are important.

You talk about definitions as if they were the final meaning of a word, yet many meanings change over time, new definitions are added and connotations are also to be considered.

John Locke once said that 'simple concepts do not admit any definition' and he's completely right.

I mean this with great sincerity... You really shouldn't just take any word from a dictionary to prove a point, it usually is much, much, much more complicated, especially if it's debated to the degree this term is.

Anyhow, I'm glad to have this debate with you but it's getting quite late here. I look forward to returning tomorrow. It actually raises my interest to introduce (the debate, not one side) to a class some time... If I ever get a chance to teach English, that is.

tarheel91, unless I missed something you didn't answer this objection.

First, communication is the attempt to convey one's thoughts and ideas to someone else.  If a=b for me and a=c for you, when I say a, we both have entirely different ideas.  That's a failure to communicate.  That's what's going on here.  People have entirely different groups in mind when they say hardcore.  That's all great and wonderful, but when we're trying to talk about a group, accurately defining them is essential.  If I say lions are found in North America, and you assume I'm talking about lions when I'm really talking about mountain lions, we're going to have issues at some point.  The only way we can ever talk about something without having to explain what we mean by each and every word is to use accepted definitions that are already preset.  That's the whole point of definitions.

If you can't find the right word while writing an essay, you don't just arbitrarily pick a word and assume that people realize what you want to say when they see that word.  That's what people do when they use the word "hardcore" for words other than hardcore.

The person I originally quoted was mad because he thought he was hardcore and the way Malstrom described hardcore was very different from him.  However, the issue was not that Malstrom was wrong, but that the poster put himself in the wrong group.  Malstrom is following the accepted meaning of the word "hardcore."  When he uses it, he assumes everyone will apply the accepted definition, not whatever crap they want it to mean.  People are assigning words to groups instead of the other way around.  You don't say hardcore means this because Jake is hardcore and Jake is this.  You say Jake is hardcore because hardcore means this and Jake is this.

That's why I find all this "hardcore means _____ to me" crap retarded.  It already has a set definition.  What you're doing is just defining other words and substituting hardcore for them.

About love: The word love refers to one abstract concept.  We all know what it is when one says it.  However, putting that abstract concept into words is very, very difficult.  Still, love, by definition, refers only to that one concept.  That concept can be broken down into various parts, but in the end, love means it and only it.

@Final-Fan: I did address it, just not directly.  I think I made it more clear this time.  Basically, they aren't a vocal minority.  They are the great majority of hardcore gamers.  They're NOT the majority of the group pearljammer is talking about.  However, the group pearljammer is talking about doesn't fit with the definition of the word hardcore.  It fits better with the word enthusiast (I'm sure there are a few other good ones, but that's my solid example right now).

I think Million's point has been pretty well established by now. Despite tarheel's best efforts to nail down the term, it's one of those words which gets tossed around so much that people just ascribe it whichever meaning suits their argument best.

That's exactly my point about why people are doing it wrong (I feel a strong urge to post a "You're doing it WRONG" picture here...).  In order to have any discussion the thing being discussed must be clearly defined.  People are arguing about what they think "hardcore" really means (aka what group they belong to and why their group should be considered hardcore).  If people would just reevaluate the group they describe and use adjectives whose definitions ACTUALLY DESCRIBE THE GROUP (I'm crazy, I know), then they'd realize that all but a select few like Malstrom aren't actually talking about the hardcore at all.  Most are talking about enthusiasts or technophiles or some other random groups.

I think the real issue is that hardcore has been labeled as cool and 1337 and zomgawesome, and people have self-confidence issues that make them feel like they need to belong to this zomgawesome group in order to be acceptable.  Thus, they simply take whatever they are and attempt to rationalize how this random group they belong to can somehow fit the word "hardcore" (even though it doesn't) so they can feel better about themselves.  If people would start trying to explain how they are zomgawesome instead of hardcore, then there would be much less of an issue.

This is really all that needs to be said regarding what defines "hardcore" gamers. How it could be anything else is quite simply beyond me.