Sony Sued For Discrimination Against the Blind
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Legally blind does not mean "Stone blind", most blind people can actually see something. Indeed one of the reasons for wearing dark glasses is because what they can see can be distracting and it's easier to deal with being totally blind than trying to grapple with such input.
Depending on how blind the person is, they might be able to play a video game with assistance.
As someone whos is disabled (albeit differantly) IRL I have mixed opinions about this. On one hand I think it's ridiculous to extended handicapped accessibility to a lot of games. That could "gimp" the entire industry (pun intended). On the other hand it is a valid point that some of these technologies have already been implemented, and while a law suit is going too far, he's right that Sony should probably add some of the features their competitors have.
Truthfully though, I would think the CORRECT course of action would simply for the handicapped to play the games that support them, as opposed to force everyone to adapt. Then make a case about the number of players (assuming it's not totally trivial) companies without such accessibility are losing.
In general I feel that we've already gotten too politically correct in the US. I am tired of there having to be handicapped access to everything, bi-lingual signs and education for people too lazy to speak english, and increasing pressure (apparently legal in some places) for people who are simply too bloody fat to move on their own to have access to rental scooters pretty much everywhere (I'm fat, but there is such a thing as ridiculously overweight).
I mean I can support the idea of helping the less fortunate, especially during times when our country is in an economic upswing and rich. But there is such a thing as getting ridiculous as well as priorities. If your having trouble keeping the roads EVERYONE uses clear of snow in the winter for example, I don't think adding handicapped access to a
library or whatever for the benefit of a handfull of people is the right priority.
I see a distinct differance between discrimination against the handicapped, and bending over backwards to accomodate them.
Who knows, maybe I'll wind up that messed up for whatever reason and think differantly. I see their point of view fairly clearly, but in the end this seems like an issue where someone should be taking their money elsewhere, not going after someone legally.
-
Also for those who have read this giga-post, one final and very IMPORTANT comment.
Sony did this to themselves. For years I have talked about the absolute stupidity of trading virtual in-game goods and currency for real money. Sony made the "gaming news" by deciding to join gold/item pirates rather than fighting them and sell all the stuff themselves, as well as officially supporting such trades. This gave a value to "game money" and "virtual items" in a way where this really ceased to be a game.
By turning their supposed "recreation" into a bloody business, and getting real money involved, I can't help but think they opened this can of worms itself. The virtual business aspects are what I see can give this weight, because the arguement can be made that it isn't a game anymore. Denying handicapped accessibility could be the same as like not adding a ramp in the right places in a Wal*Mart or Mall... which is ridiculous in it's own way, but I can at least see the laws at which it's being fought under, even if those laws were never intended to be used this way.
Frankly, I think this is the tip of the iceberg. Online games need to go back to being bloody games, and hunting gold and item salesmen. These kinds of issues simply should not exist when your kicking back to hunt Internet Dragons.
Depending on how blind the person is, they might be able to play a video game with assistance.
As someone whos is disabled (albeit differantly) IRL I have mixed opinions about this. On one hand I think it's ridiculous to extended handicapped accessibility to a lot of games. That could "gimp" the entire industry (pun intended). On the other hand it is a valid point that some of these technologies have already been implemented, and while a law suit is going too far, he's right that Sony should probably add some of the features their competitors have.
Truthfully though, I would think the CORRECT course of action would simply for the handicapped to play the games that support them, as opposed to force everyone to adapt. Then make a case about the number of players (assuming it's not totally trivial) companies without such accessibility are losing.
In general I feel that we've already gotten too politically correct in the US. I am tired of there having to be handicapped access to everything, bi-lingual signs and education for people too lazy to speak english, and increasing pressure (apparently legal in some places) for people who are simply too bloody fat to move on their own to have access to rental scooters pretty much everywhere (I'm fat, but there is such a thing as ridiculously overweight).
I mean I can support the idea of helping the less fortunate, especially during times when our country is in an economic upswing and rich. But there is such a thing as getting ridiculous as well as priorities. If your having trouble keeping the roads EVERYONE uses clear of snow in the winter for example, I don't think adding handicapped access to a
library or whatever for the benefit of a handfull of people is the right priority.
I see a distinct differance between discrimination against the handicapped, and bending over backwards to accomodate them.
Who knows, maybe I'll wind up that messed up for whatever reason and think differantly. I see their point of view fairly clearly, but in the end this seems like an issue where someone should be taking their money elsewhere, not going after someone legally.
-
Also for those who have read this giga-post, one final and very IMPORTANT comment.
Sony did this to themselves. For years I have talked about the absolute stupidity of trading virtual in-game goods and currency for real money. Sony made the "gaming news" by deciding to join gold/item pirates rather than fighting them and sell all the stuff themselves, as well as officially supporting such trades. This gave a value to "game money" and "virtual items" in a way where this really ceased to be a game.
By turning their supposed "recreation" into a bloody business, and getting real money involved, I can't help but think they opened this can of worms itself. The virtual business aspects are what I see can give this weight, because the arguement can be made that it isn't a game anymore. Denying handicapped accessibility could be the same as like not adding a ramp in the right places in a Wal*Mart or Mall... which is ridiculous in it's own way, but I can at least see the laws at which it's being fought under, even if those laws were never intended to be used this way.
Frankly, I think this is the tip of the iceberg. Online games need to go back to being bloody games, and hunting gold and item salesmen. These kinds of issues simply should not exist when your kicking back to hunt Internet Dragons.
Overall, people with problems with their vision complaining about not being able to engage in what is essentially a visual activity makes about as much sense as a man who has lost the use of his hands complaining that he can't play basketball (I'm sure that there are things we can do but this is hardly something that we would have to adress on a large scale given the small number of people who would require it).hansari said:
I'm sympathetic to those who have lost their sight (my mother struggles with issues concerning her eyes and I have spoken to her on numerous occasions about it so I'm no stranger to the issues it can cause) but this does seem like a rather empty use of the word 'discrimination' and a rather flimsy reason to sue.
actually i don't think this will go very far. the ADA doesn't cover stuff like this nor can the software behind it. it's really a case of someone trying to abuse the law but we've been condition to think that he's being reasonable and it's right to take his side
I'm visually impaired. I think this is stupid.
What the fuck is Microsoft doing to help visually impaired people play? Does the xbox have a color blind function? Why pick on sony then?
I cannot think of one reason this lawsuit is justified.
Pretty much all shooters are difficult to play for me but MMOs?????
What the fuck is Microsoft doing to help visually impaired people play? Does the xbox have a color blind function? Why pick on sony then?
I cannot think of one reason this lawsuit is justified.
Pretty much all shooters are difficult to play for me but MMOs?????
EQ does actually have some support for those who are visually impaired built into the game with audio triggers and highly customizable UI's. I don't believe however that even with a UI mod could a player easily develop any kind real text-to-speech mod without actually parsing the client software.
-Asking Sony to enhance EQ and other games to allow for better mods is a reasonable request.
-Suing them over it, is unreasonable.
The catch is however EQ is old and I admit I still play it however, it came out BEFORE people were modding MMORPG UI's and similar games. The original UI was completely locked. WoW for example came out afterwards. This meant WoW could be build around the idea of mods, where as EQ had to have it built into an already existing software which is far more complicated and difficult.
-Asking Sony to enhance EQ and other games to allow for better mods is a reasonable request.
-Suing them over it, is unreasonable.
The catch is however EQ is old and I admit I still play it however, it came out BEFORE people were modding MMORPG UI's and similar games. The original UI was completely locked. WoW for example came out afterwards. This meant WoW could be build around the idea of mods, where as EQ had to have it built into an already existing software which is far more complicated and difficult.
I guess I might has well sue Samsung for not providing monitors specifically designed for the blind.
This is like suing a peanut butter factory because they don't make a product without peanuts in it because you are allergic.
This person doesn't not understand cost/benefit. Adding features costs money, and the amount of money it would cost to implement vs the amount of money earned is just not there. Sure other companies have the features he is asking but they may have done so at the outset, not added it in later. If Sony has to spend a million dollars adding a feature to a game that is only going to earn them a few thousand dollars, why exactly would they do that?
This person doesn't not understand cost/benefit. Adding features costs money, and the amount of money it would cost to implement vs the amount of money earned is just not there. Sure other companies have the features he is asking but they may have done so at the outset, not added it in later. If Sony has to spend a million dollars adding a feature to a game that is only going to earn them a few thousand dollars, why exactly would they do that?
Yes and just to prove a point I will make a recording explaining my paintings in the dullest most monotone voice possible with a little push button next to them. I'm certain blind people WILL LOVE IT AND I WILL BE HERALDED AS A GOD. Or not.Rensa said:
Or you know If I /was/ blind I wouldn't be wasting time with mediums that require sight so badly... I'd be telling small children that I have developed the power to see into their brains or... y'know stuff that might actually amuse me. Like badly narrated audio books. The land of sound and touch is a rich barely explored terrain of wonder. Others may disagree but...
And yes most people posting are right, Games are not a right, they're a hobby, a luxury, a pointless frilly trim on the blanket of life. This case will either fail miserably, or get drawn out because half the court has uninformed sympathy for the blind.
I know a guy, he's blind, he's the biggest verbal-asshat ever, and he loves it. He also tries to sexually harass me with his rarely used cane-thingy, I try to wrestle it off him but it never works out the way I plan.
I often tell him I'm drawing a picture of him being eaten by assortments of things. Just to really tick him off.
(Yes I may go to hell, but I'm laughing all the way)
Hmm, someone who cannot see is suing a VIDEO games company:
(consults Oxford English Dictionary)
Video
? noun (pl. videos) 1 the system of recording, reproducing, or broadcasting moving visual images on or from magnetic tape. 2 a film or other recording on magnetic tape. 3 a video cassette. 4 Brit. a video recorder.
? verb (videoes, videoed) film or make a video recording of.
? ORIGIN from Latin videre ?to see?, on the pattern of audio.
I'm sorry for his disability but he might as well sue god or whoever he holds responsible for him being blind as it is not Sony that is holding him back from enjoying a visual medium.
(consults Oxford English Dictionary)
Video
? noun (pl. videos) 1 the system of recording, reproducing, or broadcasting moving visual images on or from magnetic tape. 2 a film or other recording on magnetic tape. 3 a video cassette. 4 Brit. a video recorder.
? verb (videoes, videoed) film or make a video recording of.
? ORIGIN from Latin videre ?to see?, on the pattern of audio.
I'm sorry for his disability but he might as well sue god or whoever he holds responsible for him being blind as it is not Sony that is holding him back from enjoying a visual medium.
Oh, for fuck's sake! We've got game companies trying to shut down used game markets and rentals; we got them making us pay 3 times for the same game if we want to play it on 3 different sets of hardware while at the same time only selling us a permission to play one single copy instead of either normally selling us a copy that we can use as we want or else selling us the usage rights but without arbirary (i.e., money-grubbing) platform limitations. They forbid and do their best to stop us from making and using backups (instead of providing such an option legally so that honest people would be less tempted to get into piracy) so that we would have to pay again and again every time something happened to our specific and often quite fragile data carrier (the disc). We have Microsoft being like Apple and charging extreme amounts of money for stuff that costs almost nothing by comparison, same with Sony and PSPGo, which they pretty much admitted costs more "just because we want to make more money". We have profit-driven game design, overhyped and underwhelming games, bad console ports, censorship and bans, region locks and outright lack of content in some countries (like mine, which you still can't choose on ANY of the console online services), and so on, and so on.
Yet he's chosed to fight Sony because of videogames being VIDEOgames.
You make awareness campaigns. You write letters to the company, you go the media. You do everything you can to let people know of your problem and ask them to help you with it. You DON'T go out and demand someone to bend over for you just because they can, especially when it's about something that is not, in fact, any sort of basic necessity. What's next? Suing car companies because they make cars in colors that are hard to distinguish for the colorblind?
Yet he's chosed to fight Sony because of videogames being VIDEOgames.
You make awareness campaigns. You write letters to the company, you go the media. You do everything you can to let people know of your problem and ask them to help you with it. You DON'T go out and demand someone to bend over for you just because they can, especially when it's about something that is not, in fact, any sort of basic necessity. What's next? Suing car companies because they make cars in colors that are hard to distinguish for the colorblind?
Excuse me, WHAT? How are they discriminating against the blind exactly? Games aren't usually designed to allow people that can't actually see to play them with ease, In The Pit [http://www.studiohunty.com/itp/] notwithstanding. It's kind of, I don't know, crucial to be able to see the character one's controlling.
Sony might want to see if there's something they can do to help the blind gamer demographic, if it's fully formed yet, but they have no real responsibility to go out of their way to add tons of extra content and code to make the game easier to play whilst blind. That's taking it a few steps too far.
Sony might want to see if there's something they can do to help the blind gamer demographic, if it's fully formed yet, but they have no real responsibility to go out of their way to add tons of extra content and code to make the game easier to play whilst blind. That's taking it a few steps too far.
This is just stupid,maybe someone should sue a random record company for making their music "unenjoyable" for the deaf.
