Actually, I think it was an incendiary way of pointing out the total uselessness of the term gamer. After all, what the fuck is a gamer at this point? A person who plays games? What does that mean as gaming continues to become a normalized, ubiquitous medium that everyone enjoys, not just the marketing demographic of young white male, which is what businesses and the outside culture traditionally defined it as?
I mean, we don't have special words for "a person who watches movies" or "a person who reads books," right? We have words for enthusiasts, maybe (though I never recall people calling themselves cinephiles and bibliophiles or whatever), but no one defines themselves by a type of media consumption the way gamers do. Does that even make sense in a world where everyone dabbles in it, to some degree?
The article, from my understanding, is saying that the narrow definition of who a gamer was is no longer necessary because the market for games is now, in essence, everybody.
The list of what the movement has accomplished towards any legitimate questions of journalism ethics is basically non-existent; the list of the people mercilessly harassed isn't.