Slashdot Mirror
Disabled Fans Shut Out of Galaxies
Ant writes "Wired News' Game|Life reports on Nick Dupree, a disability rights activist and writer who is confined to a wheelchair with severely limited mobility. He used to use one thumb and an index finger to play MMORPG Star Wars: Galaxies. This limited mobility was more than adequate to play the game when it was a sandbox-style adventure, and he was a devotee of the game. With the New Game Enhancements, he is no longer able to play because of the reliance on keyboard/mouse combinations and the action-style combat." There really is nothing good to report on this game update.
He could just set up a bot to play for him like half the other people who used to play galaxies...
> With the New Game Enhancements, he is no longer able to play because
> of the reliance on keyboard/mouse combinations and the action-style combat."
It's a good thing to make a change to something that makes it explicitly more accessible to the disabled but if that change also makes it worse to play for the able bodied then that is reverse descrimination. That to me is political correctness at its worse. What about the able bodied majority who find it easier when they are able to use more keys. should we all go around and change every gui so it can be used with a one button mouse and three keys on the keyboard? no! we should make it accessible to all
Not pander to a minority that might be some hundreds of people among millions of players. The producers arent in this for free.
Macro buttons/programs. They're either time consuming to set up(programs), or expensive, but so is all the other specialized equipment for someone that's severely(as TFA's subject) disabled.
The other answer, of course, is that these customers are a very small portion of the consumer base. While it sounds cold, it would be a bad marketing decision to hold the game back because someone couldn't play it(due to a lack of ability on their part).
Look behind you...
I hate to say it, but the gaming company has control over how their game works. If they feel that they will get more profit this way, then they have the right to do so, unless it causes some kind of damage or harm.
How hard would it be to offer an accessability patch which might be available for a small fee?
I can't see any reason that sort of thing would be unreasonable.
Today's show is brought to you by the number 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0: 25
Is there not a different way to set up the game controls to allow for a simpler or older style control set to be used with the new interface?
If not, then there should be.
This does not just affect disabled people, but it also affects older people and the casual, non-computer proficient gamer. Even people who prefer a simpler interface. This affects a significant portion of their user base.
Here's another reason I dislike online-only games. You're forced to endure the updates they provide, good or bad. If you don't update, you can't play. At least with a single-player game, you can decide if you want to apply the next patch/update/enhancement or not.
"Content" publishers want control over everything. Well, guess what? *I* want some control as well.
This brings up a fairly interesting, and much broader question of balancing the needs of few with the desires of many. Without having read the article (I would be loathe to break a Slashdot tradition), I imagine that the change in the control scheme was implemented to, well, make it better, or to accomodate the "New Game Enhancements," whatever that may mean. Let's say that these changes make the game experience better for 99.5% of subscription-paying players, and shut out entirely the remaining 0.5% comprised by the disabled players. Is this a problem?
It's difficult to argue that mandating accessibility requirements - especially such that would detract from the possible quality of the game for non-disabled gamers - is a great idea, particularly since we are talking about playing a game instead of something like wheelchair-accessible buildings. On the other hand, I can of course sympathize with someone who must be hard-pressed to engage in interactive entertainment due to his disability, and has now lost access to something he had previously enjoyed. What do you guys think?
"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it." - G.B. Shaw
Also, the NBA, the NFL, most soccer matches, Jenga, Twister, horse-shoe tossing, darts, snooker, being an airline pilot...
Look, being disabled means there are some thing you are not able to do. That's unfortunate, but the alternative is to limit all human activities to those things that quadraplegics can manage.
Paging Harrison Begeron...
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
I think that one of the great things about technology is that it is the great equalizer. As technology advances, fewer and fewer people will have to live with a "disabled" status since we can build machines to help them.
If I were disabled, I would spend all day's in the MMORPGs. I can only imagine how liberating it would be to be equal with everybody else, and not have people immediately take pity on you upon sight. This man, who now has lost his access to this world that had once been a major part of his life, has my sympathies, and I urge the galaxies people to find out a way to accommodate him.
The thing is that I have a gamer friend who fell down a flight of stairs. Games are the only thing that distracts from the pain. What's the difference between porting WoW to linux, and adding a custom interface for people with limited mobility? We are all one accident away from loosing our livelyhood, our gaming, our collegues, and our health. One shitty game of Nethack doesn't replace that. Were something to happen to you, I think you'd see things differently.
At least in theory, everyone should be able to play SWG
Why? Do we have to modify every form of entertainment so two fingered people can use them? Tennis? Football? Giving someone dignity an quality of life doesn't mean that all of us can only do activities that severely disabled people can do.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
haven't done much research
Well, it's hard to do any research when Sony locks and removes every thread criticizing their consolification/total conversion of the game, now isn't it?
People are leaving in droves. The game system has been vastly dumbed down (a multi-path skill-based system ejoyed by quite a few, replaced with distinct classes with levels, like WoW but with less content), the interface reworked into some third-person shooter - again well-suited for a conversion to console, and the SimBeru gameplay of resource extraction and crafting has been messed up. Oh, and making Jedi available from the start, thus nullifying the "hard work" of players who had endured the grinds previously needed to unlock Jedi powers? Brilliant.
Then there is the release of the new expansion just days before the changes, which had been in the making for months, came live and essentially made much of the expansion's content null and void. That made a lot of people angry, for very good reason, as they felt they were being lied to when they were sold the expansion's features.
Now, can you actually come up with ANYTHING good about the current SW:G instead of just criticizing a statement with no real counterargument?
When you're handicapped, you can't do the same things "normal" people can do.
:P
"Normal" people don't play Star Wars: Galaxies in the first place.
A relation of mine had MD and playing games was one of the few things he could do that put him on a level playing field with the vast majority of us.
I'm not saying that all games should be developed to allow access to all with every conceivable disability - for one thing it's impossible - but if small minor (and cheap) changes can be made to a game, then I can't see a reason not to.
Think of it in terms of buildings. Some old buildings are completely unsuitable to convert to wheelchair access, narrow doors, steps all over the place etc - not even cost effective to try to sort them out. New buildings are much better, open plan, elevators etc - so it's not that hard to go the extra mile to stick in the odd ramp etc (in fact most have been designed now not to even need that).
There are loads of small things that can be done. Deaf gamers get mightily pissed off with games that don't have subtitles (or just have them missing on cut-scenes). Not that much effort to add them is it? (Look at HL2 for a game that has made the effort)
WTF is wrong with a 'Playable by disabled person' sticker on the back? We already have them for 'playable by 18+', 'playable on ninja-PC' and all manner or random shit - just have a look on the back of the box, disk space, sound card blah blah (does anybody have problems with sound compatibility any more)?
How about if somebody came up with some teeny little icons and allowed them to be tucked discreetly on the back - 'subtitles throughout' or 'Full control with mouse only'? If anything they might shift more units - god help you currently if you have a specific problem and are trying to pick a shiny game off the shelf and wondering if you'll be able to play it.
So why not have both? Why alienate such a large group of people.
Because they're afraid that more players will stay with the old version, and it'd be pretty humiliating for a corp to be faced with such objective proof that "newer" != "better".
Sony tried to have both, and released Everquest2 while EQ1 was still running. They attribute some of EQ2's disappointing results to that choice. Looking at http://www.mmogchart.com/ EQ2 still doesn't have nearly the subscribers as EQ1 (although I don't know if this is confused because of Sony's combined-subscription plans).
The concern of auto-cannibalization is greater for an franchise property like Star Wars. The marketplace might support niches for several kinds of online games based on spaceships, androids, and laser-pistols, but there can only be one "Star Wars Online" at a time. To be THE StarWars game carries automatic value, independent from the quality of the specific game.
The publishers wanted to shift to target different customers, but didn't want to dilute their brand by continuing the older service. Thus, the many existing subscribers suffer because Sony hopes to replace them with 5x the number of 15-21 year-old males.
(This will turn out to have been a losing gamble- if they wanted online twitchy StarWars combat, they should've tried to improve StarWars-Battlefront2 with a more compelling and persistent online service. Instead, they're making a pale WoW-clone in a StarWars skin)
If it were possible to add something to Tennis or Football that would allow a two-fingered person to play without changing the game for able-bodied people, then yes.
This is not about Tennis or Football. This is about a video game, a video game where the addition of a customizeable GUI would allow disabled people to play without having any impact at all on able-bodied people.
Everyone seems to be going to the absurd extreme of thinking "And next they'll want to make Physics PhD programs open to people in persistent vegatative states! And the NFL open to people with no arms or legs!" That is not what is being talked about, and going to such an absurd argument isn't insightful - it's the exact opposite, and it avoids speaking about the very real merits of the issue.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Well, what you say is true, in a sense. For one thing, there are of course visual art programs that blind people are unlikely to be interested in. There's little or no point in making those accessible to THOSE disabled users.
If it happens that other disabled users WANT to use it however, and have some difficulties due to design, then that should obviously be fixed. The article is about dexterity issues, which can easily be solved by allowing different input methods, as an older version did.
The big issue though, is that people simply being dismissive of disabled users' needs. There is absolutely no reason why, if a user (disabled or not) wants to be able to control a piece of software, that input methods cannot be devised to allow this. So, when I say all programs, I mean all programs that disabled users might want to use, but that IS much closer to ALL programs than a handful, and I really think we need to think of accessibility as a default, rather than an exception.
On high-contrast, high-feedback, low-skill, etc... Again, if a user wants to play such a game, they are likely to believe that they could do it, if the input and feedback only suited them. This could easily be catered for with different UI modes, tilesets, etc. Most user interfaces, even in games, are becoming much more dynamic, using scalable graphics and high-level input APIs rather than bitmaps and raw joystick access. So it's definitely doable. And, yes, I think any cost involved in that extra mode should be part of the overall cost for all members of society who play the game. We're all in this social thing together.
Both SWG and EQ have had some serious screwups, and about the only way to make the games fun again involves using a time machine.
Luckily, the world has enough tall people that some manufacturers are willing to make adjustable seats. --If I sit in a car and can't make myself feel comfortable, I'd write off a possible purchase immediately. So the automotive design departments write the extra paychecks to make their damned seats accommodating to people who are not clones. Aw, poor babies. . .
As for the video game market and disabled people. . .
People complaining about, "That's just how it is. Get used to it," are not being very clever. . .
The whole point of Personal Computing as I understood it when the movement launched a couple of decades ago, was that the Personal Computer would be a multi-purpose tool which could be programmed to the precise needs of its user.
Please consider that.
And guess what?
Despite the mountains of general annoyances and oversights and thoughtless designs, the PC is STILL a multi-purpose tool which can be programmed to the precise needs of its user. Thank heavens!
You can get keyboards and mouse inputs which are highly programmable. In the case of this particular piece of software, however, it sounds to me as though the game itself really needs to be changed. (Actually, it almost sounds as though the new interface was deliberately made to be annoying and very difficult to get around with hardware solutions. So who knows what new madness is going around the Ranch?)
In any case, I'd pen a letter to the guys at Lucasarts asking them politely to spend a couple of days coding some work-around into their interface. Make their interface as highly programmable as possible. (I'd make this standard practice from the drawing board up in all my PC games, but then nobody is asking my opinion.)
Heck, with enough emailing around, you could probably find some hacker interested enough to do it for you for free. Or learn how to hack it yourself.
It's just software after all. It'd be more doable than taking a hatchet to that two inches of thoughtless engineering which cracks my head every time I forget to duck under the doorframe to my back room.
Just my two cents. --And for a third penny. . . What's up with geeks not leaping to solve this problem? Come on, you guys! You get excited about designing a robot which can carry a ping pong ball upstairs, but you're willing to penalize a fellow for presenting an engineering problem which is both interesting and directly applicable to the real world? What's up with that?
-FL
I will gladly take the exact opposite opinion:
The new game enhancements are atrocious. The interface is horrible. The combat, while more exciting, is still "stand-there-and-click-the-next-attack", but the click/keyboard press order has just been changed around a little. Ohh.... and the fact that you have to keep your target in the crosshairs in a non-collision world is ridiculous.
The game is pretty much hollow now. The servers, compared to a year ago, are ghost towns of their former selves. I'm a HUGE SW fan. In fact, the only reason I even started playing an MMO was because it was a Star Wars MMO. Nevertheless, Sony and Lucasarts managed to completely screw up the one hobby I truly enjoyed playing in my evening free time. I survived the combat upgrade ok, but the NGE is completely off the wall. The Sony track record of "Hey... let's screw over our veteran players" is why the majority of the veteran SWG players have left the game! The game is dumbed down enough to where my 4 year old would probably enjoy it.
You can read (in mind-numbing detail) all about why I left SWG here: Clicky.
-- Stu
/. ID under 2,000. I feel old now.