Visually Impaired Gamer Sues Sony 550
An anonymous reader writes "A visually impaired gamer has sued Sony because game products allegedly violate the Americans With Disabilities Act. 'According to the suit, Sony ignored repeated requests through postal mail and e-mail to come up with reasonable modifications to its games to make them more accessible.' This suit seems to be a combination of National Federation of the Blind v. Target, which complained of inaccessibility to the visually disabled (which settled for $6 million) and Martin v. PGA Tour, Inc., where the US Supreme Court ruled a disabled golfer was entitled to a golf cart where one was not already allowed as a reasonable accommodation. If the plaintiff wins, Sony will have to make 'reasonable accommodations' which are not an 'undue financial burden.' In my humble opinion, providing access for the disabled is not only the right thing to do but it will generate more profit for Sony."
What next? Cameras? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What next? Cameras? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What next? Cameras? (Score:5, Funny)
And modeling agencies for not letting the visually impaired feel the models.
Re:What next? Cameras? (Score:5, Informative)
In the British Museum, there's a notice saying something along the lines of "Do not touch these exhibits, unless you're on the blind tour"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, all art museums I have been to do have guided audio tours for the blind...
Re:What next? Cameras? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless, mastering a piece is involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Won't work unless they are stereo cameras because in normal cameras the pictures all come out exacty as you see the world. Flat.
Which is a blessing if you are married becasue you can always cop out of the question, "Does the new ### make me look fat?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"No, your fat ass makes you look fat" is the answer of champions.
Great (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Next he can sue auto manufacturers for not making cars accessible to the blind.
That lawsuit is entirely possible and winnable under the current ADA. Reform is necessary NOW! Predatory lawyers and litigious garbage (yes, they can be disabled too) are ruining this country and the ADA facilitates it for being written too loosely!
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't disagree that ADA is written too loosely, but a lot of the abuse depends on the judge. The "reasonable accommodations" part of the act is important.
If there are modifications that can be made without undue financial strain, I don't see a problem with asking the company to modify the game.
The red herrings mentioned elsewhere, about making cars work for the blind and the like, would be examples of UNreasonable accommodations.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Reasonable accommodations are in the eye of the beholder.
Re:Great (Score:5, Funny)
This one has 70 Hit Dice.
Re:Great (Score:5, Interesting)
However, the second part is what seems ridiculous to me. He claims that Sony's online auction site for selling/buying games isn't fit for the visually impaired. So not only is Sony not allowing him full entertainment of the games, they're actually costing him extra money. That's just stupid. Every computer I've seen within the last 5-6 years has come with some sort of zoom feature for the visually disabled. I know my computer (Alienware bought at the end of 2008) has an Ease of Access section in my start menu with a magnifier, narrator, on-screen keyboard, and voice recognition. They're probably not the best out there considering them came with it, but I'm sure it would allow him to use an auction site.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It depends on the website. I'm no expert and you need an account to view the actual site but the lack of alt texts on the images and using images as titles, here [sony.com], does not bode well for screen readers.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So, if YOU were Sony, you think that YOU should do so.
But do you think that the law should tell Sony what they SHOULD do?
The point of what I'm talking about is the vague wording of the ADA and how it has led to tons of litigious shakedowns for cash. Because of the vague wording, people whos think that a company should be obliged to do something are enabled to legally FORCE these things (and get paid), despite the topic at hand having almost nothing to do with the true intent of the ADA which is to facilita
this is getting ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
I was born with a crippled left hand making it impossible for me to play an immensely popular game, Guitar Hero.
Should I sue because they didn't accommodate for people with my particular disability? Plenty of people are missing limbs. Why aren't they in an uproar over Guitar Hero?
and what somebody sued and got 6 million dollars from the PGA? I don't think Lee Travino's putting challenge has anywhere near the popularity of Guitar Hero.
Controller Mod? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't most big companies have a policy of ignoring any letters that are suggestions, to stop people suing the company for royalties if they implement a similar idea?
Re: (Score:2)
The guitar's just a controller. Substitute your regular controller for the guitar.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Clearly it's a hardware issue (Score:4, Funny)
The software requirements clearly stated:
Clearly, he should probably be suing the hardware manufacturer. Let's hope his mom has some cash.
Re:this is getting ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. The problem is, that the line got lost. The line that should be drawn between treating people equally, and preferring a specific group.
The whole concept of making people who are different "special" is the exact opposite of equality. (equality is zero, "special" is positive infinity). It's just as bad as treating people badly. (negative infinity)
Also. As the scale is not absolute but relative, treating someone better, means treating everyone else worse. Depends on your standpoint.
The only difference? Preferring people with disadvantages, is preferring disadvantages for society. Not a wise move...
I wish to be treated for *exactly* what I am. (If the person is able to know what I am.) If I am bad at something, don't fuckin' say it is OK! It is NOT! I have to work on that, to be successful in evolution! Period. And if someone is better than me, I don't call him an ass because he says so. If he is right, he has all rights to say so! I can be proud, because he makes humanity as a whole better. Everything else would just be pathetic jealousy of someone with a low self-esteem.
Hawking is a great example. I am better at moving than he is. And I can say that. He is a total genius in physics. And I don't think he has a urge to have a low self-esteem because of his disadvantages. Just as I don't have low self-esteem because of mine.
Conclusion: That's the funny thing: :)
- You can measure the integration of black people in America by the amount of talk that still is needed to mention equality (as something special).
- Gays only will become normal parts of society, when the need for a "we are so special" parade goes away.
- Feminism only will have reached its final goal, when it stops existing.
- Etc, etc, etc.
Because not the other extreme is the goal. A loose swinging around the origin between the extremes is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
- Gays only will become normal parts of society, when the need for a "we are so special" parade goes away.
Wait, what? Parades are an indication that the paraders aren't a normal part of society?
They have parades for all kinds of things - returned veterans, marching bands, agricultural fairs. Does that mean that all those are not normal parts of society?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I mean in those cases you're CELEBRATING or HONORING something. We have Thanksgiving Day parades for Thanksgiving and parades for veterans to honor their sacrifice and accomplishments. It's not that he hates gay people (or at least, nothing in his post seems to indicate that), it's just that gay pride parades are celebrating the fact that they're gay. It's not that the parades are what's preventing them from being a normal part of the society, it's the fact that society has driven them to have to even h
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, he did say "we are so special" when describing the parades and I'm guessing that's probably what ticked you off.
Well, yeah, that's something that shows his prejudices - because that's not really what the parades are about. Sure, it is about "gay pride" but being proud of who you are is a bit different to saying "I'm special."
Either this applies to all parades, or it doesn't. Take ethnic parades - they are usually seen as a celebration of culture. But I guess they could be taken as "we're so special" events, but that's not usually how they're seen.
So, ultimately is he saying that in an equal society, nobody should be
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OS-impaired (Score:5, Funny)
I'm an operating-system-ly impaired gamer. I'm using Debian to run my computer. I demand that all Windows games be immediately released for Linux.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Crossing the line ... (Score:5, Insightful)
In my humble opinion, providing access for the disabled is not only the right thing to do but it will generate more profit for Sony.
That's a fine-sounding liberal opinion, but when did accessibility to a video game, which presupposes a minimum level of vision, become a privilege mandated by the Federal Government? We are not talking about an essential service here, access to government records, we aren't even talking about a visually-impaired person being unable to order products online. It's a video game. Entertainment, no more.
Look, sometimes we can't do fun things that we'd like to do, but it doesn't mean we should start hiring lawyers. There was a time in my life when I'd go rock-climbing (only a few times, but it was fun and I was in pretty good physical shape back then.) Almost thirty years later and I wouldn't even bother trying: totally out of my league now, having been at a desk job for almost that long. So, that being the case, should I start complaining that rock faces should be made "accessible" to me in my "impaired" condition?
Please.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In my humble opinion, providing access for the disabled is not only the right thing to do but it will generate more profit for Sony.
That's a fine-sounding liberal opinion
Finally, an opinion on Slashdot worthy of being humble!
I'm blind, therefore you have an obligation... (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't understand. The reasoning goes like this:
There's nothing that can't be justified by that reasoning. Any time a blind person isn't experiencing perfect joy, you can be argued to have failed in your obligation. It doesn't cross a line. There's no line.
Re: (Score:2)
I can just imagine a "twitch" game for blind players.
"Ready...Jump!"
"Crouch now!"
"Dodge! Dodge!"
"Do A barrel Roll!"
It would make fucking Navi seem like a phone sex operator inside of 15 seconds.
Re: (Score:2)
Your screenreader is much too slow. Try using the 300 words per minute setting-- the cues are much more precise.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Amusement parks are "entertainment, no more," and they're governed by the ADA as well.
Amusement parks are covered by the ADA because they are commercial facilities.
The ADA specifies 5 covered entities. Tell me which if these is a video game:
* Employment: no
* Public Entity: no
* Public Transportation: no
* Public Accommodation: no
* Commercial Facility: no (virtual doesn't count)
* Telecommunication: That's as close as you're going to get, but I'm going to go with 'no' on this as well.
A video game is not a commercial facility, nor is it employment, public facility, public transportation, or tele
Re: (Score:2)
It could easily be seen as a public accommodation.
Re: (Score:2)
er... video game systems and the games themselves are private property.
Re:Crossing the line ... (Score:4, Informative)
So is every business covered by the ADA. Keep in mind that, according the article, we're talking about MMORPGs, which are just as much a service as websites, which have already been held to be subject to the ADA.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, I also mean accessibility to invitees, like people allowed on to the property to conduct business. "Public accommodation" does not mean a "publicly funded and provided accommodation," it means a place that is generally open to the public. The EEOC provides guidance listing such places to include "restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors' offices, pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, parks, private schools, and day care centers."
If MMORPGs are considered a public accommodation (as a "place of amu
Re: (Score:2)
Should all movies be modified so blind people can enjoy them like us bastards who can see?
Should all music players be required to blink lights to the beat and show subtitles so deaf people can enjoy the music too (but that would be unfair to deaf epileptics)
The ADA at amusement parks is more along the lines of making sure a person with no legs can get on a roller coaster, not making sure the blind guy can win the ball toss.
There's a point where it's just being stupid to be pissed that you can't enjoy a visu
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read my post? The accommodations have to be reasonable to be required by the ADA.
Further, you're assuming that the person suing is blind, which doesn't make sense when you consider that one of the possible accommodations requested is "the addition of visual cues." This person doesn't appear to be blind.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I know that people don't read the articles, but I'll write this in bold and in caps so you can read it, since both you and the person doing the suing seem to have something in commoon: LOOK AT THE TITLE OF THE SUMMARY - VISUALLY IMPAIRED GAMER SUES SONY
He's not blind. However, without seeing the communications he's had with Sony, there's no way to know if what he's asking is reasonable, or i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
That's the best Slashdot disclaimer I've seen yet.
Re:Crossing the line ... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a fine-sounding liberal opinion...
It's too bad you had to politicize an otherwise reasonable post and opinion.
That's not much politicizing, and if you can't accept a little of that then why, exactly, are you on Slashdot? How we treat disabled and handicapped people is a very politically-active topic in this country today, so a little politicizing is certainly in order. How we, as a society, divert resources to help the less-advantaged is very much a legitimate political issue. Nor, in case any of you are thinking that, am I advocating that we leave the helpless to suffer on their own. I just don't believe that corporations should be required to accommodate everyone's use of their products, especially in areas where it's clear the application is, well, kinda inappropriate anyway.
Regardless, the point is that a certain class of individuals generally known as "liberals" tend to want to help everyone (for a variety of reasons, one of which is that it makes the liberal feel good about himself) but don't always consider whether that's actually in everyone's best interests.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot more merit to this case than you're giving it credit for.
Sure. But that's not really the issue. This is more a question of legitimate (or otherwise) use of government authority: is this a case worthy of the Feds forcing compliance, or should it be reserved for more important problems. Doesn't matter what you and I think anyway ... the courts will sort it out one way or the other.
As someone who used to be a game developer, supporting a color blind player is not as "dead simple" to fix as you think. It's not just a matter of turning down chrominance and making e
I don't get it (Score:2)
So are deaf people going to sue Sony for not signing bands that cater to the hearing impaired?
I'm all for promoting access for the disabled but there's just some things that can't be done no matter how many lawsuits you file.
I doubt it'll provide more profit for Sony (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if Sony loses the suit, there's nothing stopping Sony from accepting mods for the sole purpose of aiding accessibility while still forbidding other kinds of mods. Perhaps a certification process for third party mods.
Good luck with that? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? "Press the X button. Now run after the red thing." Okay, maybe I see your point.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you remember the old laser disc game, "The Dragon's Lair"? The sound track was very linked to events in the game: only two of them, where the scene would be reversed left-right randomly. I actually saw someone play it blindfolded, as proof that it could be done, with the cheering crowd telling him to go left or right for that pair of scenes.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple. Use audio cues instead of visual ones. TFA mentioned an audio compass and voice-over as being examples.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you are open to being sued by Helen Keller.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't make sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Accessibility isn't required, reasonable accommodations are. Now to debate the definition of "reasonable" and whether or not the feds should even be involved is another matter.
Standarized interface for plugins? (Score:2, Interesting)
Most screen readers can parse HTML so that visually impaired users can access web sites, as long as they properly write the web site to standards (not making the whole thing in Flash, for example).
It'd make sense if game developers got behind publishing a common API for all games, so that a user can just install a single program that'd give the proper clues to disabled gamers for every compatible game.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't install programs on consoles, it's games only.
double edged sword? (Score:2)
It may be an issue of the game designers being afraid of ruining gameplay balance by implementing accessibility features no
been going downhill (Score:2)
I've got just the game got him... (Score:2, Funny)
It is dark. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
>_
Re:I've got just the game got him... (Score:4, Insightful)
It is dark. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
What's "dark"? Why would you need a lantern? Even puzzles aren't as accessible because they're "seen" from a different perspective.
This could backfire (Score:4, Funny)
Knowing Sony, they might also consider the mass slaughter of the physically impaired to be a financially responsible action.
Re: (Score:2)
Introducing Sony's cutting edge PlayStation 4 game console, now with revolutionary Soylent Green-Ray disc technology.
I'm torn (Score:2)
On the oth- Wait, never mind.
What's next? (Score:2)
Public Accommodation (Score:5, Interesting)
The Americans with Disabilities Act states that, "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."
This has kept a generation of lawyers employed by arguing over the definition of "public accommodation". The strict interpretation limits it to only physical places, which would rule out games. There have been many court battles over expanding the definition. This particular suit, if I read the various summaries correctly (IANAL), would be one of the more far reaching stretches of the definition and could have a significant impact on how much the ADA covers.
In short, it could fund an entire new generation of lawyers by expanding the ADA to an almost unlimited scope. Blind or not, I hope this guy goes down in flames.
For reference: http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?50+Duke+L.+J.+297 [duke.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
AOL settled with the National Organization for the Blind on that one, agreeing to make their client more "accessible". That was in 2000, when AOL's web client mattered.
Target settled their online ADA lawsuit in 2008 [usefularts.us]. But that was related to Target's having physical stores subject to the ADA, and the web site being related to the stores.
The ADA only applies to "commercial speech", where the intent is to sell. In the US, the First Amendment preempts the ADA for non-commercial speech by non-government p
An auction site is probably commercial speech (Score:3, Interesting)
The ADA only applies to "commercial speech", where the intent is to sell. [...] Games aren't usually "commercial speech".
Do advertisements in video games count as "commercial speech"? What about Sony's "official auction site where gamers can sell their in-game items for real money" that the article mentions?
Why does this only apply to Sony? (Score:2)
So why is he specifically targeting Sony? Why not all the video game manufacturers? In the end, Sony will agree to make some trivial modification to some game to meet this guys requirements, maybe like a "high contrast mode". And then...
The lawyers will once again win.
WOW from a Visually Impaired Person's point... (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.wow.com/2009/07/06/visually-impaired-players-the-unseen-inhabitants-of-azeroth/ [wow.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Does it work that way? Unless he has some fancy 3d screen (and a version of WoW that doesn't exist), everything on the screen is being portrayed on a flat plane. Sure, distance is faked using different sized objects but I don't think depth perception is actually an issue when everything is viewed at exactly the same depth.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You know that there was this great invention called "glasses", some 725 years ago, do you? ^^
How much of this is customer service? (Score:3, Insightful)
Many large organizations today seem to use their customer-facing staff solely as a means for getting rid of people who phone up to complain, or to request things or make enquiries. This isn't necessarily the fault of the staff in question, or the intention of the organization. Yet somehow things get structured so that it becomes the function of the support staff. For instance, I suspect that under-staffing the help desk or measuring performance by calls "resolved" as opposed to customers satisfied tends to push things towards a "When customers call, make them go away, otherwise they're stopping us talking to our customers" mode of operation.
The other problem is that it's pretty easy in a large organization (or even a small, highly bureaucratic one) to get into situations where large swathes of problems are "somebody else's responsibility", or likely "nobody in particular". Much as I dislike the idea of a work environment where inappropriate work is dumped on people, or staff are lumped with resolving things they're not responsible for, at the end of the day the buck ought to stop *somewhere*, even if it's just a customer service supervisor writing back. If a customer has a real and legitimate question to which there is *an* answer but there's *nobody* in the organization whose job description allows or requires them to answer it, you're doing something wrong. It's not possible to satisfy all people all of the time but I think most organizations can do a heck of a lot better than they do!
In this instance, the allegation is that Sony ignored requests made of them. Did they ignore them outright, did they fob off the (potential?) customer, or did they make the effort to respond but the gamer didn't like the answer anyhow? Sony may have done everything as well as they possibly could in this case but they should nonetheless evaluate whether engaging more with the gamer in question could have saved them a court case.
Some of the claims in the case could seem a bit dubious but as the article points out, various other companies have at least allowed 3rd parties to develop plugins that assist disabled gamers. So it's not like anybody's saying Sony must develop (for instance) a braille interface to WoW on their own budget.
Lets make this very clear! (Score:5, Insightful)
The Americans With Disabilities Act was written so loosely that there are so many of these litigious bullshitteries going on nation wide. It is basically a form of extortion facilitated by poorly written 'laws'.
We need reform on the ADA as soon as possible! Locally, a predatory woman has sued over 80 local businesses (this is her JOB now), represented by a lawyer who has sued over 250.
I hope sony lobbies to get reform.
I say all of this with the great respect for the disabled and the true intent of the ADA. It is the exploit of the act that bothers me so much.
In this case, Sony makes visual video games and a guy who can't see thinks Sony OWES him a game. That's like being allergic to peanut butter and suing Reeses for not making you a hazelnut cup. THEY DONT OWE YOU A HAZELNUT CUP!
Re:Lets make this very clear! (Score:4, Insightful)
We need reform on the ADA as soon as possible! Locally, a predatory woman has sued over 80 local businesses (this is her JOB now), represented by a lawyer who has sued over 250.
This sort of thing sounds horrible when you first hear it, but it's important to remember, most of those business probably were violating the ADA. Maybe they didn't have a ramp going into their store, or whatever. If they had made their business more accessible to begin with, it wouldn't have been a problem.
I'm totally against frivolous lawsuits, but you can't say her lawsuits were frivolous just because there were a lot of them. You have to show that they were frivolous.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I didn't have time to go into detail, but, for example, she sued a place because the soap dispenser was high (when she is in her wheelchair) enough that soap would run down her wrist. She complained that this made her feel embarrassed and mistreated. Note that in an interview she has discussed her injuries, which do not require a wheelchair, and she claims she only uses a wheelchair when she feels she needs to.
Note also that in most cases the businesses settle out of court. In this case they paid her som
not sure... (Score:2)
my perception of somebory that is "visually impaired" is somebody that doesnt see very well, but is not blind. if you can see, but not very well, buying a beamer would be the obvious solution instead of suing Sony.
anyway, if the changes for Sony would be reasonable and it wouldn't affect the quality of the product in a negative way, i'd say why not? do it!
Sue him back (Score:2)
Sony should sue him back for his refusal to buy a bigger TV.
Opinion from a blind guy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Visually impaired != Blind (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously guys, it's easy to go "Tut tut, blind people can't possibly play games, what an unreasonable fellow". But the article says *visually impaired*, which does not necessarily mean total blindness. There are phases in between where you can see the computer screen but it'd be nice if the game didn't have to make it really hard to follow what's happening. Are there really as many people here as the posts would indicate who can't see this distinction?
Also: are you the same crowd of people who bitch at Microsoft for releasing OSes that are too bloated to run on your hardware without an upgrade. You *can* at least upgrade your hardware!
Come on... be cool... (Score:4, Insightful)
Being disabled myself, I can sympathize with such frustrations... but guess what... even the disabled can be totally unreasonable!
Sure, it's one thing to expect handicapped accessible ramps and bathrooms at places of business which deal directly with the public, but it's something completely different to expect a business to cater to any and every conceivable disability when the person in question isn't even on their property or being dealt with on a personal basis.
Why should this person be suing Sony for problems extending beyond the scope of their hardware's intended use when the guy could just as easily find a 3rd party solution for such issues and get government assistance to acquire it? Are they somehow entitled to a first party solution simply because a third party solution might not be as pretty to use or look at? Is there a reason this person should expect every piece of software/hardware he encounters to have a built-in zoom function, when he could just as easily use something like a display magnifying glass like that featured in the film version of "1984"? And how would they prove that using such an external solution would "damage" them to the point that the only logical solution is to sue not the display hardware's manufacturer, but the manufacturer of other hardware using that display?
After all, is it Sony's fault that this person purchased a TV with pixels too small for them to view the images shown on it adequately?
Um, no. (Score:3, Informative)
Not as bad as the summary makes it sound (Score:3, Informative)
It's actually got a point.
The main issue appears to be Everquest and the other MMOs they make. These games do not feature reasonable accomodation for visually impaired users. There is only so far you can accomodate visually impaired people in a visual medium, but it's good to go as far as you can without damaging the experience for those with normal vision.
The lawsuit refers to World of Warcraft and some other games to show that such accomodation is in fact possible in an online video game context at a reasonable cost.
I'm not sure the ADA actually applies to online games, but if they can convince the court that it does, they seem to have a solid argument for trial.
Not entirely unreasonable (Score:3, Interesting)
*It seems mostly focused on MMOs, but doesn't name any specific games.
*"Visually impaired" is not a euphemism for "blind" here - he literally means "people who can see, but not well". So much of the backlash is misguided ("Blind people are suing to play video games? LOLWUT? Next they'll want to drive???!!!?")
*His list of things that would make a difference are reasonable - high-contrast display modes, audio navigation cues, audio descriptions of items, and the like.
*HOWEVER... he then proceeds to state that Sony's causing him to LOSE MONEY because he could be selling his in-game items for real-world cash. Ugh.
So this thing isn't entirely over-the-top, but it definitely falls apart when he argues monetary loss.
How does this even apply to Sony? (Score:3, Interesting)
He's complaining about the features of a game, which are a good, or good/service combination, using legislation that specifically targets location based attractions. If he's going after Sony because of its SonyStyle stores, then any possible equitable remedy would also apply to every store that has a game kiosk, or anything interactive at all, like the easy listening CD machine at Bed Bath and Beyond.
Personally, I really, really hope that this case is dismissed. First, for inapplicability of the statute, but more importantly so that game developers are not saddled with the additional economic burden of adding disability compliance to all games. The mechanics of a video game are not like walking up a ramp, including a braille menu, or using the bathroom. They are varied, and hinge fundamentally on a wide variety of combinations of audio and visual stimuli that cannot generally be summed in a way to make them equally accessible given some sensory impairment. There is no single, predictable means of meeting such a requirement, adding more uncontrollable variable cost to game development, leading to less ambitious titles, less experimentation among developers, less development time and resources for the core functionality of the game. Having been a software developer, a game developer, and now a legal scholar, this just seems bad, bad, bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Go after MS paint (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. That would seem to be the next target if a lawsuit were to actually succeed.
The whole point of the Act in question was to assure that basic and essential services were available to the disabled, not that every single potential activity must be catered to. Shall we have laws forcing automakers to make cars that can be driven by the tongue for quadriplegics?
Maybe there's a market out there for video games for the blind, I dunno, but to demand a company do substantial modifications (and for a lot of games, they would be substantial, if possible at all) is ludicrous.
Re:Go after MS paint (Score:5, Insightful)
To demand the company make any modifications is ludicrous. If it's profitable then Sony will do it on its own, or not. Who cares? Blind people can't do a lot of things. Video games are one of them.
There's a big difference between meeting standards for government websites and forcing developers to make a different game from what they envisioned.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yep, a lot of theatres do now. Read about the Rear Window Captioning System [wikipedia.org]. You may have watched a movie with it without even realizing.