The difference between a consoomer and a fan - and what's the difference between collections and a shrine

[George Lucas]

Just a reminder that OP actually has autism.

 

[retard strength]

I am starting to feel like it comes down to how much interest the viewer has in the subject.

I could look at an organized and nicely displayed room of rare Star Wars collectibles and I would still call it stupid consoomer hoarding, but obviously lot of people will disagree and some would even call it a preservation of history or a museum.

I could look at a small, neat shrine of mass-produced anime character merchandise and also call it stupid consumption regardless of the owner's passions or employment status, and I would feel the same way about a lovingly organized, small, one-of-a-kind fursona OC shrine.

I could look at a wall of die-cast car models that the owner could tell me every single detail of, uncluttered in a faraway part of their family's home, and still think it's a stupid waste.

I could look at a friend's shotglass collection from all over the globe and find it pointless and dumb even if they've got great memories from each one.

Then I could look at a grandmother's glass cabinet display of hideous dolphin snowglobes and decide it is really cool and interesting collection, no this is different, yeah she doesn't really care about them because they were all gifts, but this is different!

I guess just enjoy your things without being an idiot about them. I have a lot of thoughts on collector vs consumer, especially with antiques, but it doesn't matter what I or anyone else think in the end. Except don't ruin your parents' or spouse's or kids' lives with your junk clutter. That's the most important part.

 

[Billy Beer]

A fan can appreciate the good, while highlighting where it could be better, or where it failed.

A consoomer will argue everything is fucking perfect and peachy and has never been better.

The best example i can think of is gaming. Fat nerds in basements were fans. Those wanking off over the latest piece of shit from Ubisoft, Acti or EA are consoomers.

 

[Milwaukee Macho Man]

The best example i can think of is gaming. Fat nerds in basements were fans. Those wanking off over the latest piece of shit from Ubisoft, Acti or EA are consoomers.

This is a horrible example, as the fat nerds in basements are the ones that just absolutely hate everything related to gaming now yet still continue to buy useless console upgrades and play awful/rehash sequels year after year.

Hardcore/"real" gamers tend to be far more consoomerist than the normies who just play Madden and CoD every year. You could make the argument that the normie buying a XSX or PS5 does so out of ignorance, but a gamer will point out how useless the upgrade is, how there are nothing but remakes and garbage on the system, the games run like shit, etc. etc. and yet they still go out searching for them and sometimes even paying scalpers.

 

[Freya]

"Fan" is short for "fanatic"

 

[Billy Beer]

This is a horrible example, as the fat nerds in basements are the ones that just absolutely hate everything related to gaming now yet still continue to buy useless console upgrades and play awful/rehash sequels year after year.

Hardcore/"real" gamers tend to be far more consoomerist than the normies who just play Madden and CoD every year. You could make the argument that the normie buying a XSX or PS5 does so out of ignorance, but a gamer will point out how useless the upgrade is, how there are nothing but remakes and garbage on the system, the games run like shit, etc. etc. and yet they still go out searching for them and sometimes even paying scalpers.

Sort of, but you're confusing modern day gamers with that of 10, 20 and 30 years ago.

The hobbiest gamers made way for the 'hardcore' generation of gamers (around the pswii60 era) and casual gamers. Both of those groups split in two to form; jaded gamers who hate the state of the industry and addicts on the hardcore side, and normies and consoomers on the casual side.

Addicts and consoomers are the same thing in the gaming industry, more or less. Jaded gamers and hobbiest gamers were the old fans who may have a dabble now and then, but have largely left the stinking shit heap that is modern day gaming, save for playing some old classics, and normies are normies.

Yeah, maybe it wasn't the best example as perceptions on gaming vary wildly depending on where you are and what industry you prefer; PC or Console

 

[Milwaukee Macho Man]

The hobbiest gamers made way for the 'hardcore' generation of gamers (around the pswii60 era) and casual gamers. Both of those groups split in two to form; jaded gamers who hate the state of the industry and addicts on the hardcore side, and normies and consoomers on the casual side.

I've seen "jaded gamers" since at least around the time PSX/N64/Saturn came out. Plenty of people shitting on how bad 3D games were compared to 2D, how 3D camera would ruin gaming, RPG's were too focused on CGI cutscenes, etc. etc.

There have always been jaded gamers, I'm pretty sure.

 

[Synthetic Smug]

What's simple enjoyment, and what's performance? Do you actually enjoy collecting this stuff or does your collection just prop up your sense of self?

I think a useful dividing line is what questions you allow yourself to ask yourself about who you are and what is actually enjoyable.

 

[Billy Beer]

This is a horrible example, as the fat nerds in basements are the ones that just absolutely hate everything related to gaming now yet still continue to buy useless console upgrades and play awful/rehash sequels year after year.

Hardcore/"real" gamers tend to be far more consoomerist than the normies who just play Madden and CoD every year. You could make the argument that the normie buying a XSX or PS5 does so out of ignorance, but a gamer will point out how useless the upgrade is, how there are nothing but remakes and garbage on the system, the games run like shit, etc. etc. and yet they still go out searching for them and sometimes even paying scalpers.

Sort of, but you're confusing modern day gamers with that of 10, 20 and 30 years ago.

The hobbiest gamers made way for the 'hardcore' generation of gamers (around the pswii60 era) and casual gamers. Both of those groups split in two to form; jaded gamers who hate the state of the industry and addicts on the hardcore side, and normies and consoomers on the casual side.

Addicts and consoomers are the same thing in the gaming industry, more or less. Jaded gamers and hobbiest gamers were the old fans who may have a dabble now and then, but have largely left the stinking shit heap that is modern day gaming, save for playing some old classics, and normies are normies.

Yeah, maybe it wasn't the best example as perceptions on gaming vary wildly depending on where you are and what industry you prefer; PC or Console

I've seen "jaded gamers" since at least around the time PSX/N64/Saturn came out. Plenty of people shitting on how bad 3D games were compared to 2D, how 3D camera would ruin gaming, RPG's were too focused on CGI cutscenes, etc. etc.

There have always been jaded gamers, I'm pretty sure.

They were right though. Early 3d games, while technically impressive, also lost a lot of depth because the tech was spent doing the 3d rendering, leaving mostly empty worlds. The ps2/dreamcast/xbox era was where the experimentation happened, and it wasn't until the ps360 gen that 3d had caught up to the story telling and depth of 2d. OG Mass Effect was as good as the old 2d isometric RPGs, story line wise.

I meant more the kind of jaded gamer that is disgusted by the corporatisation (for want of a better word) of gaming, and the abandonment of making games for fun, as a hobby or to just show off.

 

[Milwaukee Macho Man]

They were right though. Early 3d games, while technically impressive, also lost a lot of depth because the tech was spent doing the 3d rendering, leaving mostly empty worlds. The ps2/dreamcast/xbox era was where the experimentation happened, and it wasn't until the ps360 gen that 3d had caught up to the story telling and depth of 2d. OG Mass Effect was as good as the old 2d isometric RPGs, story line wise.

I meant more the kind of jaded gamer that is disgusted by the corporatisation (for want of a better word) of gaming, and the abandonment of making games for fun, as a hobby or to just show off.

And people complained that games became too cinematic, there was too much of a focus on open world, the surge towards motion control gimmicks, etc. etc. during those times, and today everyone complains about monetization and live services.

Basically, "gamers" have always been unhappy and jaded and yet keep spending their money/time on the hobby. They're far more consoomer types than the normies who play Ubisoft games or Madden. Ask yourself who is more likely to have a backlog of games? The casual or the "gamer". How exactly is having a huge backlog of games you haven't played any different from a bunch of funkopops and other useless shit lying around?

 

[Pomniman]

There really isn't much of one outside of an academic distinction. The highly homosexual proclivity of making any of your hobbies a large enough part of your identity to consider yourself a "fan" or part of a "fandom" is no better than just passively shoving shit down your gullet. It's like the difference between a whore who has a set type vs a complete gutter slut who'll take any and all available cocks.

 

[Enceladus]

A fan does it for themselves. A consoomer does it for attention.

 

[George Lucas]

Sort of, but you're confusing modern day gamers with that of 10, 20 and 30 years ago.

The hobbiest gamers made way for the 'hardcore' generation of gamers (around the pswii60 era) and casual gamers. Both of those groups split in two to form; jaded gamers who hate the state of the industry and addicts on the hardcore side, and normies and consoomers on the casual side.

Addicts and consoomers are the same thing in the gaming industry, more or less. Jaded gamers and hobbiest gamers were the old fans who may have a dabble now and then, but have largely left the stinking shit heap that is modern day gaming, save for playing some old classics, and normies are normies.

Yeah, maybe it wasn't the best example as perceptions on gaming vary wildly depending on where you are and what industry you prefer; PC or Console

They were right though. Early 3d games, while technically impressive, also lost a lot of depth because the tech was spent doing the 3d rendering, leaving mostly empty worlds. The ps2/dreamcast/xbox era was where the experimentation happened, and it wasn't until the ps360 gen that 3d had caught up to the story telling and depth of 2d. OG Mass Effect was as good as the old 2d isometric RPGs, story line wise.

I meant more the kind of jaded gamer that is disgusted by the corporatisation (for want of a better word) of gaming, and the abandonment of making games for fun, as a hobby or to just show off.

‘Old 2d isometric RPGs’ is a super niche genre. I don’t even know what those games are outside of the first two Fallouts. Call me ignorant but I’m going to guess those companies made shitty 3D games because of other factors, not because of 3D.

Plenty of other genres increased their depth very quickly, story-wise, regardless of whether there were CDs involved or not. Compare Super Mario World’s story which is a few text boxes with Banjo-Tooie’s.

Outside of story, depth is obvious when you look at how accurate flight and driving simulations could actually exist with 3D. The realism in these genres increased so rapidly from this simple change. Simulations today aren’t much different from their early 3D predecessors.

Obviously some genres weakened in 3D like fighting games, but that’s subjective and not really shown by economic evidence. In fact, there was no video game crash caused by 3D. Early 3D actually caused gaming to grow even more, despite all the economic difficulties at the time.

Your perception of the gaming scene is just not accurate. Anyone who was in the scene in the Golden Age (before the Famicom was released in 1983) can tell you the divide between casual and hardcore and arcade and computer gamers existed even back then.

 

[Milwaukee Macho Man]

A fan does it for themselves. A consoomer does it for attention.

Nah, this is typical consoomer denial. If you're buying a bunch of shit just because it has a branding attached to it, you're a fucking consoomer. The distinction between being a fan or not has absolutely nothing to do with it, it's fucking pathetic and cringe either way.

The good news is, almost everyone is a consoomer in some way or another. And like you said, nobody has to know if you don't draw attention to it.

At the end of the day being a consoomer is kind of like being gay, it's not a big deal if nobody knows about it.

 

[Smug Chuckler]

A consoomer is a fanboy/girl with a horrible spending habit.

 

[Michael Janke]

a consoomer buys next product with no regard to the quality of that product.

a fan buys a product that they like, but not necessarily of the same brand.

 

[Clockwork_PurBle]

A fan can appreciate the good, while highlighting where it could be better, or where it failed.

A consoomer will argue everything is fucking perfect and peachy and has never been better.

The best example i can think of is gaming. Fat nerds in basements were fans. Those wanking off over the latest piece of shit from Ubisoft, Acti or EA are consoomers.

A consoomer will also viciously argue if you happen to like something within the fandom that is generally decided upon being "bad."

i.e. "all dubs bad, all subs good," "you aren't a true fan if you prefer the dub," regarding anime or any foreign non-EL work.

I would also say if you have the opinion that "X is bad no exceptions" BUT you aren't openly a dick about it, then it's still dumb but not an issue.

 

[NoonmanR]

Don't buy things because it has [Brand Name] on the box. You don't even need a particularly deep reason, even if it's just because it looks cool, that's a hell of alot more thought you're putting into your purchasing decision than a consoomer does.

 

[Geet]

A fan does it for themselves. A consoomer does it for attention.

Yes, I think that is more or less the main distinction.

A fan, a shortening of "fanatic" most likely, is primarily concerned with the content itself. They are very much taken with it. There is a lack of self-control implied in its usage as well as connotations of fawning and obsequiousness.

In contrast, consooming is largely predicated upon the prestige and social millieu which already exist due to the brand or content itself. What matters most to the consoomer is not the object and the effect it has upon him, but the social status of the object, its popularity and reputation.

The consoomer is fundamentally proletarian because he attempts to assume for himself the social clout of his chosen brand, creative content, or subculture. He thinks there is a linear relationship between the amount of products he buys of a particular brand, or the amount of pop culture trivia he memorizes, and the amount of respect people will allot to him. And because the consoomer will only consoom things with a large enough social base from which to receive attention, he will always attach himself to the new and the vulgar.

You will find no consoomers of the novels of Balzac, because although there is plenty to collect physically and the author is highly esteemed, there is simply not a large enough mass of people from which to derive attention. Even if the consoomer actually took the time to read the works, possibly learn French, and memorize some favorite bits, he's not going to get to the front page of reddit with his collection. Basically nobody will understand any references he makes. And so due to his desire for vicarious social esteem (as well as his intellectual laziness), he opts for Star Wars, seasonal anime, Spiderman, etc.

And so you see, although fans are often disgusting spergs, they have a genuine regard for their content of choice, which is not constrained based on its popularity or novelty. The consoomer's regard is for the shallow approval of others, so he must choose from the new and mainstream.
In the former, we see the relationship with the content is primarily internal, whereas in the latter the content is largely a vehicle for social posturing, i.e. external.

 

[skjora]

You're a normal fan if you're doing it reasonably and a consoomer if you aren't. Whether the thing you're a fan of is really autistic really shouldn't matter, but it's hard to not factor that in as well.