Would you sue someone for making a product you cannot physically use? Alexander Stern, a visually impaired gamer, is suing Sony, Sony Online Entertainment, and Sony Computer Entertainment America for making video games that do not cater to the visually impaired, according to the Web site, GameSpot.
Stern claims that repeated requests through e-mail and postal mail were ignored and is suing under the grounds of the Americans with Disabilities Act. His claim is that Sony’s virtual worlds (Everquest II, for example) do not pander to the visually impaired. There is no statement of just how visually impaired Stern is.
The entire case rests upon the assumption that online virtual worlds are “places of public” accommodation, the same as a restaurant or movie theater.
Why attack just Sony? Stern claims that Blizzard Entertainment’s World of Warcraft supports third-party user-created modifications that provide support for the user in the form of visual and audio cues. Well, yes, but all Blizzard did was enable mods; the end-users did the rest. He also cites another game that supports aids for the visually impaired. I definitely give props to the creators of the mod for WoW and the other game for supporting persons with disabilities.
In a seeming joke, added to the litigation is the fact that Stern has seen fit to sue the aforementioned entities on the basis that they have caused him monetary loss. Sony runs an online auction site for its games where you may trade in game items for real-world currency, much like eBay. And since he cannot play the games easily, he feels he has lost this vital income.
Words fail me.
The gaming industry has managed to remain relatively unscathed from personal lawsuits, suffering mostly attacks from within while abiding by governmental exertions of power. If this case pushes through, it will open up an entirely new can of idiotic litigatory worms.
However, let me throw a little perspective onto this bonfire: This is ENTERTAINMENT, not something that everyone requires. This isn’t a public restroom, or access to a grocery store, or the ability to go into the National Archives. This is a private sector industry that exists purely for the entertainment of its users in a virtual space.
Could a person with one leg sue a soccer ball company for making soccer balls that were not one-legged person accessible? Could a hearing impaired person sue a rock band for not making music on a pitch/tone that is easier to hear for the partially deaf? Where does any of it end?
The crux of the matter is whether something that exists visually is barring to the blind. This could include books, paintings, billboards, pornographic materials, the sign to a store, you name it. These are intellectual properties, not physically barring things, like steps would be to someone in a wheelchair.
A blind person may purchase these the same as if a one-legged person bought a soccer ball. Neither would be a whole lot of use to either of them, unfortunately, and it’s really no one’s fault. It’s just the nature of the beast, and that is why I think this lawsuit will be thrown out. You can’t attack something for the reason that by its very nature it excludes some people, because that’s almost everything for one reason or another.
I think the ADA can be a little too loosely interpreted. We want to make the world a friendly and easy-to-live-in place for those with disabilities, not screw companies out of as much money as possible just because.
All that being said, I do think that gaming companies should, on principle, do as much as possible to include those with disabilities in the gaming experience. It goes a long way for public relations and it will make them money in the end as these are markets to tap into, especially as the current and previous generations of gamers age and start to lose their eyesight down the road.
Many games currently include subtitles for the hearing-impaired; why not create a few audio/visual cues for the visually impaired? Adding a high contrast mode or an audio cue directing you to where something is should be common courtesy in this day and age.
[email protected]
No blame for virtual impairment
Daily Emerald
November 9, 2009
0
More to Discover