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…

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

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.

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.

“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.

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…