Slashdot Mirror
Visually Impaired Gamer Sues Sony
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."
I'd hate to to think what this guy would do when he realizes that cameras don't pander to the visually impaired market. On the other hand, I'm blind in one eye so maybe I can take a leaf out of his book and and sue camera companies anyway for products that don't suit my particular physical situation and finally realize that "??? profit" step.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
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.
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.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Somehow, I doubt it would be easy to enable people who are BLIND to play video games. :/
After years of not using a signature, I am going to make one to say the following: Fuck Beta
Why are game companies, or any companies for that matter, required to make every product accessible? I can understand government services, both because of their purpose but also because of the fact that they are paid for by public money (and generally don't actually need to be un-accessible), but products of corporations? If this guy wants to complain to the company and then not buy their products, fine. In fact, that's really the best way to deal with the issue.
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.
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!
This act has been a complete sham since its adoption and is a permanent backdoor to special treament for anyone who can hire a doctor to say they are disabled.
Time to end these government-sponsored special privileges. We tried it, its bogus, scrap it.
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!
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.
An important change for education.
Reasonable accommodations are in the eye of the beholder.
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.
I am totally blind, and I have played video games, specifically Punch Out, so I can definitively say that it is possible, at least to play some games. Whether or not this lawsuit is justified depends on many facts that haven't been revealed. If this guy is expecting the game to be substantially altered, then I think he's wrong, and the ADA (based on my reading) would not support his position. However, if he is simply asking Sony to add some small features to the game that would make it more accessible, then I think his suit is reasonable and he should win. My understanding of the ADA is that it doesn't allow you to sue to change the laws of the universe. It just allows you to sue when a company does not provide reasonable accommodation when it is within their power to reasonably do so. Unfortunately, the definition of reasonable is quite relative.
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, does not bode well for screen readers.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
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.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
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?
8==8 Bones 8==8
I care. Visually impaired != blind.
I think government should force companies to address the needs of disabled as long as it is reasonable. For example there is no point allowing programs to use colours which are impossible for colour blind to distinguish thus making the use of the program unnecessarily difficult.
Whether in this case the modifications needed are substantial or not is different matter to which I have no opinion.