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.
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.
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.
I doubt it'll provide more profit for Sony. But if Sony lose and are forced to mod their MMORPGs, I think it may mean more profit for gold farmers. Some of the mods are likely to make it easier for bots to navigate and do stuff :).
Knowing Sony, they might also consider the mass slaughter of the physically impaired to be a financially responsible action.
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
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
http://www.wow.com/2009/07/06/visually-impaired-players-the-unseen-inhabitants-of-azeroth/
What if you were to play around with the frets with your right hand and mod the controller out to replace the strum bar with two foot pedals? (A bit of a roundabout solution, but Its better than the other replies you've gotten...) What I'd really like to see is the content of these letters that he's sent to Sony. Theres another article linked inside of this one about a guy who is blind and helps other blind people play commercial games through screen readers, surround sound, and menu guides. He's even gone so far as to send mail to developers and publishers to suggest how they might better help the blind. That could be the key difference between these two. If this guy just sent a bunch of letters about how "OMGZ UR GAME ISH HARD FUR BLIND PEEPS" and then giggled to himself how they didn't respond to him, then he's just being an idiot trying to get some cash out of this. If Sony's been ignoring valid suggestions on how to help and giving him the silent treatment, then he might have a case.
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!
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.
The first part of his suit seems reasonable, he claims that Sony should do what other MMOs have done to make the game more accessible to the visually impaired (seems to be a lot of voice-over stuff). The article seems to say that Blizzard allows third party mods that have voice compasses and stuff, so it seems like Sony could easily throw together a few of those (and it would probably net them a larger selection of players so they really should).
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.
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.
This one has 70 Hit Dice.
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!
The software requirements clearly stated:
Clearly, he should probably be suing the hardware manufacturer. Let's hope his mom has some cash.
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.
Exactly a judge should be able to look at the WHY reasonable accommodations are required, and work accordingly. Let us just not forget there was a REASON why the ADA was passed, and it wasn't for asshats like this. When my late sister had to go to court over someone stealing her identity the local courthouse, which was built in the 20s, naturally didn't work with her wheelchair, but since there is the ADA they couldn't just tell her to "figure it out" (Which in the 70s they would have done).
So the judge simply thought about it for a few minutes, and had court on the steps during lunch break. It only took them a couple of minutes to get her testimony and get everything resolved in her favor. It didn't cost anyone anything but a little extra time and allowed my sister to have her day in court despite her handicap.
And THAT is why we have the ADA, not so some asshole can play golf or blind guys can play video games. It was so the handicapped couldn't be discriminated against when it came to the important stuff like access to government services. It really burns me up when some douche takes what was a perfectly reasonable request...make it so the handicapped can have access to basic services, and tries to turn it into his/her own personal lotto. Just another proof that scum sucking lawyers and greedy douches are running this country into the ground IMHO.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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