The Blind Gamer’s Lament
A lawsuit has been brought to Sony Entertainment Online’s door by disabled gamer, Alexander Stern, who alleges that the company is not complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act by including features in their games to help the visually impaired.
Now, if you’re like me, your first reaction was “Blind people play video games? How?” To answer both questions, yes, and it’s really hard.
The way blind and visually impaired gamers operated is that they can navigate some games by sound cues alone with enough practice, and for those with still some vision, some games offer high contrast modes so they can more easily see what’s happening onscreen. Neither option is particularly easy to adapt to, but through perseverance, many blind gamers make it work.
However, Sony, the suit claims, does not offer any such support, and repeated requests for help to the studio have gone unanswered, which is in violation of the ADA which states, “”No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.”
I can imagine Sony rolling their eyes when receiving the initial requests (“We have to make video games playable for BLIND PEOPLE? You’ve got to be kidding.”) But the answer is yes, you do, as blind gamers are gamers nonetheless and the law is the law for a reason.
The added help of sounds and contrast ratios doesn’t seem like it would take more than a day’s worth of work for the studio, so they might as well do it before this gets taken any further.
[via Gamespot]
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] Blind gamers sue Sony. Yes, there are blind gamers – [Double Kill] [...]
Umm, Paul, did you even READ the quote from the ADA that you provided?
If you did, you would have realized that it refers to “places of public accommodation.” Before you add your legal conclusions (see, e.g., “Yes, you do”), I’d like you to explain to me exactly how a video game is a “place” of public accommodation. Because taken to its logical conclusion, this proposition would require the manufacturers of ALL products to make their products accessible to blind people. I can see it now, next they will sue eyeglass manufacturers…
I found this article through abovethelaw.com, where a number of actual lawyers are having a great time with your reasoning in the following sentence:
“But the answer is yes, you do, as blind gamers are gamers nonetheless and the law is the law for a reason.”
If you’d like to check out the responses there, please follow this link: http://abovethelaw.com/2009/11/morning_docket_111009.php?show=comments#comments.
As for myself, I’d like to caution you against making such sweeping statements about the law, which is a field in which you have no expertise.
Cool, you guys are awesome. I appreciate a few dozen smartass lawyers calling me “retarded.” No wonder you all make the big bucks.
I was not the one who came up with the assertion that Sony was violating the ADA, that is what the lawsuit is claiming. Perhaps it was a bit presumptuous of me to state “yes, you do” as the matter has yet to be resolved one way or the other, but I was just trying to express that I believe that blind gamers are entitled to fair shot at games if minor tweaks can allow their playing experience to be better. But yes, I guess that makes me “retarded.”
I’m not a lawyer, but after hearing you guys berate me and also mock blind gamers’ requests for help, I’m glad I’m not.
In response to another comment. See in context »You know better than to make this into a “lawyers are evil” thing. Aren’t lawyers giving this blind gamer his best shot at improving his situation? Lawyers defend the indigent, disabled, and the otherwise voiceless every day in this country.
My problem (and, I believe, that of a number of others) was not your position, but rather how you expressed it (the sweeping and conclusory language of “THE ANSWER IS yes, you do.”) It made the law sound settled in this area, which it isn’t. If you had instead argued cogently for your belief in why the gamer’s complaint embodies good public policy, I wouldn’t have objected.
In response to another comment. See in context »I will agree with you that my language could have been better. Fortunately, I’m a video game blogger, not a lawyer, so these kinds of issues rarely come up, but I’ll watch myself more in the future.
You seem to be the only rational person protesting me, so I respect you for that. Unfortunately all your colleagues over at AboveTheLaw are just content with calling me names, demanding my torture and death and worse yet, ripping on blind gamers, which they don’t seem to understand DO actually exist and can play video games with a little help from the studios.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6215457.html
In response to another comment. See in context »Paul,
The mockery is less about the gamers’ requests, and more about their sense of legal ENTITLEMENT to modification of a product based primarily on VISION. Lobbying for it is one thing, stretching a statute beyond any logical comprehension to force it is entirely different.
Oh yea, and sorry that lawyers take umbrage with people who have no legal experience throwing out definitive legal conclusions, but I’m sure you’d see the same thing if I tried to diagnose a complex medical condition…
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Michael 2.0, Tweets Tube. Tweets Tube said: The Blind Gamer’s Lament http://bit.ly/SFJln [...]